Re: Bug with temporary child of a permanent table after recovery

On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 21:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > On the whole I think resurrecting the rd_islocaltemp flag might be the
> > best thing. We can keep the use of "relpersistence ==
> > RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP" to do what rd_istemp used to do, it's just the
> > equation of "rd_backend == MyBackendId" with "is my temp table" that's
> > bogus. And this way gets rid of some unnecessary cross-branch coding
> > differences.
>
> Here is a draft patch for this. Thoughts/objections?

It looks good to me.

> One thing I noticed that maybe needs more work is that tablecmds.c in
> general seems mighty willing to hack upon temp tables belonging to other
> sessions. I added tests for that in the places where there already were
> checks on relpersistence, but I wonder whether we ought not simply
> forbid all forms of ALTER on nonlocal temp rels, right up at the top.

Do you see any path where an ALTER can get a hold on a non-local temp
table? Or do you just mean as a sanity check? Either way, blocking it at
the top sounds good to me.

Regards,
Jeff Davis