| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, "Carl R(dot) Brune" <brune(at)ohio(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: read only transaction, temporary tables |
| Date: | 2006-08-12 11:35:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20060812113521.GB16270@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:57:49AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > It does seem a bit inconsistent that we allow you to write into a
> > temp table during a "READONLY" transaction, but not to create/drop
> > one. I'm not excited about changing it though, as the tests to see if
> > the command is allowed would become vastly more complex.
>
> Temporary tables in the SQL standard are permanent objects, which is why
> creating or dropping them is a durable operation and not allowed in
> read-only transactions. It would probably make sense to allow creating
> or dropping PostgreSQL-style temporary tables, though.
Temporary tables still get an entry in pg_class, so for truly readonly
systems they wouldn't work. If you can fix that though it might be
doable.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | chris smith | 2006-08-12 13:24:46 | Re: Best approach for a "gap-less" sequence |
| Previous Message | Sandeep Kumar Jakkaraju | 2006-08-12 11:12:31 | Connection Object |