On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55:15PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: >> Concerning everyone's favorite topic, how to name the new type of table, I >> liked Tom's proposal[1] to make CREATE TEMP TABLE retain current behavior and >> have CREATE GLOBAL TEMP TABLE and/or CREATE LOCAL TEMP TABLE request the new >> SQL-standard variety. (I'd vote for using CREATE GLOBAL and retaining CREATE >> LOCAL for future expansion.) As he mentions, to get there, we'd ideally >> start >> by producing a warning instead of silently accepting GLOBAL as a noise word. >> Should we put such a warning into 9.2? > > Here is the change I'd make.
This is listed on the open items list. I haven't ever heard anyone propose to redefine CREATE LOCAL TEMP TABLE to mean anything different than CREATE TEMP TABLE, so I'm disinclined to warn about that. I would be more open to warning people about CREATE GLOBAL TEMP TABLE - frankly, it's pretty wonky that we allow that but treat GLOBAL as a noise word in this first place. But I'm a little disinclined to have the message speculate about what might happen in future versions of PostgreSQL. Such predictions don't have a very good track record of being accurate. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
