On 15 July 2015 at 16:28, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:

> On 2015-07-15 16:24:52 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > It may be possible to do this, though I'm sure there's a wrinkle
> somewhere.
> > But there doesn't seem to be a need to overload the main feature request
> > with additional requirements. Doing that is just scope creep that
> prevents
> > us getting features out. Nice, simple patches from newer developers.
> Later
> > tuning and tweaking from more expert community members.
> I think that's generally a fair point. But here we're discussing to add
> a fair amount of wrinkles with the copy approach. The fact alone that
> the oid is different will have some ugly consequences.

Why? We are creating a local temp table LIKE the global temp table. That is
already a supported operation. So there is no "different oid".

> So we add complexity, just to shift it into different places later? I'm
> not sure that's a good idea.

There's no complexity in a simple temp table like. We can do this now with

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Reply via email to