Tom Lane wrote: > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > SQL99 is pretty clear about temporary tables, at least. > > It is ... and in fact the spec's notion of a temp table has nearly > nothing to do with ours. They contemplate a temp table as an abstract > table schema, if you will, that gets instantiated locally within a > session upon first use. There is no ability in the spec for two > sessions to create unrelated temp tables of the same name --- their temp > tables of the same name must share the same, predefined schema. > > I wasn't around when PG's temp table concept was created, but I think > it's considerably superior to the spec's concept.
That was me. I think you were around, though. > I'm willing to compare the spec's notions for guidance, but we must not > take it as gospel when we're deciding how temp objects should behave. > Their concept of temp-ness is different and very much more limited. Well, again, looking at desired practice, I can't see how it can be argued that having a view on a temp table _not_ exist the temporary namespace can be defended, and everyone else seems to think it should, so, added to TODO: * Have views on temporary tables exist in the temporary namespace TODO updated to remove mention of temporary views. We sort of now have temporary views, but not completely so I can't mark those items as done; I just removed them: * Allow temporary views * Require view using temporary tables to be temporary views They don't behave 100% as temporary because of the namespace conflict. -- 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 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
