On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 05:50:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Applied with some further wordsmithing on docs and comments. We can
> still tweak this if anyone objects, of course, but I thought it'd
> probably save work to get it in before the branch.
Thanks.
The SQL standard also distinguishes b
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 02:56:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > Given that, how about warning on GLOBAL only but having the documentation
> > equally discourage use of both?
>
> Yeah, that's about what I was thinking, too.
>
> Any thoughts on the wording of the WARNING message
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 09:18:39PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I guess the
> remaining question is whether to do it only for LOCAL TEMP tables or
> also for GLOBAL TEMP ones. A survey of what other products do might
> be of some value.
Thanks for investigating.
> Sybase ASE, which I include only
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe the right thing to do here is nothing. I think to some degree
>> we are arguing about what color to paint an imaginary bikeshed. If at
>> some point we support GTTs using the syntax CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY
>> TABLE, then there is going to
Robert Haas writes:
> We don't actually have a patch for GTT at this point; Noah is at least
> the second person to threaten to write one, but nobody's actually done
> it yet to my knowledge.
IMO, the main reason that's been let slide for nine years is that there
wasn't a particularly strong use-
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> So there are three types of temporary tables defined in the standard,
> and the PostgreSQL implementation doesn't look like any of them. The
> bad thing is that PostgreSQL supports syntax for two of them without
> matching the standard sem
> Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Because the current support for temporary tables is relatively
>> similar to the standard's description of LOCAL TEMPORARY TABLES,
>> but nothing at all like the standard's descri0ption of GLOBAL
>> TEMPORARY TABLES.
>
> Um ... did you read the spe
On 9 June 2012 17:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change,
>
>> It was hardly a subject of marked disagreement.
>
> It was hardly a subject of discussion, as yet.
>
> Personally I'm pretty d
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Because the current support for temporary tables is relatively
> similar to the standard's description of LOCAL TEMPORARY TABLES, but
> nothing at all like the standard's descri0ption of GLOBAL TEMPORARY
> TABLES.
Um ... did you read the spec before stating that? In th
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Simon Riggs writes:
Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented
>>>
>>> I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change,
>>
>> It was hardly a s
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs writes:
>>> Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented
>>
>> I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change,
>
> It was hardly a subject of marked disagreement.
Regarding GLOBAL, the three co
On 9 June 2012 16:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> Add ERROR msg for GLOBAL/LOCAL TEMP is not yet implemented
>
> I don't believe there was actual consensus for this change,
It was hardly a subject of marked disagreement.
> and certainly not for throwing error on both cases.
Why wo
12 matches
Mail list logo
