From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rahul_g(at)ip(dot)eth(dot)net, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Are temp table really invisible for existing table |
Date: | 2001-08-03 14:47:38 |
Message-ID: | 20320.996850058@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org writes:
> but, when i try to create a new table (not temp) with the same name
> as that of name of temporary table recently created it gives me
> message as "the table already exists"
This is the intended behavior...
> should it be happened ?
Dunno. As things currently stand, the only thing we could do
differently is to automatically drop the temp table when we see a
regular create for the same name. (If we don't, the existence of
the temp table creates naming conflicts that will cause problems
for the regular create.) That doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
> * Is there any function to check the existance of temporary table,
Not at the moment. You might consider creating the temp table at the
start of a client session, and letting the function just assume that
it exists. (Once we implement schemas it should be possible to look
in the system catalogs to check existence of a temp table, but the
way it's done right now is a kluge that's not reflected in the
catalogs.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-03 16:19:57 | Re: Are temp table really invisible for existing table |
Previous Message | pgsql-bugs | 2001-08-03 10:15:54 | Are temp table really invisible for existing table |