| From: | Robert Creager <Robert_Creager(at)LogicalChaos(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Mattias Kregert" <mattias(at)kregert(dot)se>, "TANIDA Yutaka" <tanida(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Boris Popov" <boris(at)procedium(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Temp rows - is it possible? |
| Date: | 2003-11-10 20:46:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20031110134630.33a79ef1.Robert_Creager@LogicalChaos.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
When grilled further on (Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:39:32 -0500),
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> confessed:
>
> We recently decided we had to forbid foreign-key references from temp
> tables to permanent tables because of this effect. I wonder whether
> we won't end up forbidding temp tables as children of permanent tables
> too.
>
Forbidding temp tables that inherit? That would suck (as someone who uses
them). Would there be an alternate method to easily create a temp table that is
identical to another?
Cheers,
Rob
--
13:44:43 up 101 days, 7:03, 5 users, load average: 3.37, 2.99, 2.55
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-10 20:49:21 | Re: [off-topic] Bugtracker using PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-10 20:43:29 | Re: Temp rows - is it possible? |