Re: Temporary tables under hot standby

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:26:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I haven't ever heard anyone propose to redefine CREATE LOCAL TEMP
>> TABLE to mean anything different than CREATE TEMP TABLE, so I'm
>> disinclined to warn about that.

> From a documentation perspective, it will be awkward to explain (or decline to
> explain) that both GLOBAL TEMPORARY and LOCAL TEMPORARY are standard syntaxes
> with non-standard behavior, only one of which emits a warning.

Yeah. If we're going to touch this at all, I think we should warn about
both, because they are both being interpreted in a non-standards-compliant
fashion. It's possible that different message texts would be
appropriate, though.

If we create the infrastructure necessary to make GLOBAL TEMP
standards-compliant, it would not be totally unreasonable (IMO) to make
LOCAL TEMP act like GLOBAL TEMP. It would still be non-compliant, but
closer than it is today. Moreover, if you argue that the whole session
is one SQL module, it could actually be seen as compliant, in a subsetty
kind of way. (Or so I think; but I've not read the relevant parts of
the spec very recently either.)

regards, tom lane