On 2016-08-14 21:04:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2016-08-07 14:46:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> I think the whole idea of a fast temporary table is that there are no > >>> catalog entries. If there are no catalog entries, then dependencies > >>> are not visible. If there ARE catalog entries, to what do they refer? > >>> Without a pg_class entry for the table, there's no table OID upon > >>> which to depend. > > >> TBH, I think that the chances of such a design getting committed are > >> not distinguishable from zero. Tables have to have OIDs; there is just > >> too much code that assumes that. And I seriously doubt that it will > >> work (for any large value of "work") without catalog entries. > > > That seems a bit too defeatist. > > Huh? I didn't say we shouldn't work on the problem --- I just think that > this particular approach isn't good. Which you seemed to agree with.
I took your statement to mean that they need a pg_class entry - even if there were a partial solution to the pg_depend problem allowing to avoid pg_attribute entries, tha't still not really be a solution. If that's not what you mean, sorry - and nice that we agree ;) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers