Rod Taylor wrote: > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 11:18, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I'm thinking that temporary views should be pretty trivial to > > > > implement. > > > > > > ... except not so trivial, per the rest of your note. > > > > > > Do we actually need any such feature? Views on temp tables already work > > > correctly in CVS tip: the implicit DROP CASCADE on temp tables at > > > backend exit makes such views go 'way too. > > > > Oh. but RESTRICT is the default. Seems like the view should go away no > > matter what, and if they mix temp and non-temp tables, is it obvious > > that the view will disappear if they didn't specify TEMP on view > > creation. > > When the backend exits the code that removes temp tables is CASCADE by > default and anything depending on it will disappear.
Oh, OK, that is interesting. So that only leaves the issue of not specifying TEMP in a case of views using mixed temp/non-temp tables. We don't specify TEMP when creating an index on a temp table, and it is auto-destroyed. I guess it is OK that we don't specify TEMP on a view creation using a temp table, except that the view can have a mix of temp and non-temp while an index is just on one table. I can go either way on this. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
