Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What I am wondering now is if we should flip the logic to reject CREATE
> >> LOCAL TEMP TABLE? Or should we just silently accept both? I'm leaning
> >> towards the latter, on the grounds of backward compatibility.
>
> > Well, since we don't support modules, I think we should allow LOCAL. If
> > we had modules, we should reject it.
>
> Huh? If we had modules, we'd probably actually implement it.
>
> If you want to look ahead that far, the question is whether rejecting
> LOCAL or treating it as a noise word, today, will provide the easiest
> update path to full support for module-LOCAL temp tables.

Seems so. I was saying we would remove LOCAL _only_ if we had modules
and didn't support LOCAL for them.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073