| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: what is difference between LOCAL and GLOBAL TEMP TABLES in PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2007-07-01 21:46:46 |
| Message-ID: | 17505.1183326406@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> if I understand well, there isn't any difference between local and
> global temp tables in postgresql.
See the archives; some time ago we determined that the correct reading
of the spec is that global/local determines visibility of temp tables
across modules, but still within a single session. Since we don't have
modules there is no difference for us.
> I have question. Is correct implementation of global temp in Oracle or
> Firebird, where content of glob.temp table is session visible and
> metadata of g.t.t is persistent?
It's correct per spec. Whether it's more useful than what we do is
highly debatable --- it forces all sessions to use the same definition
of any given temp table name, which is a bit silly for something that's
supposed to support session-local data.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eric | 2007-07-02 02:20:08 | Re: GiST consistent function, expected arguments; multi-dimensional indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-01 21:40:42 | Re: Restartable signals 'n all that |