Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables
Date: 2003-04-15 22:23:00
Message-ID: 10473.1050445380@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Seems so. I was saying we would remove LOCAL _only_ if we had modules
> and didn't support LOCAL for them.

Okay. For now, I think backwards compatibility is a sufficiently good
reason to accept LOCAL as a noise word, anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dann Corbit 2003-04-15 22:26:17 Re: Are we losing momentum?
Previous Message Dennis Gearon 2003-04-15 22:21:36 Re: Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL