From: | Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | AW: [HACKERS] Another TEMP table trick |
Date: | 1999-01-29 08:37:34 |
Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C60267B2E5@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> test=> create table test (x int);
>> CREATE
>> test=> insert into test values (1);
>> INSERT
>> test=> create temp table test (x int); <--
>> CREATE <--
>> test=> insert into test values (2);
>> INSERT 19787 1
>> test=> select * from test;
>> x
>> -
>> 2
>> (1 row)
>>
>> test=> drop table test;
>> DROP
>> test=> select * from test;
>> x
>> -
>> 1
>> (1 row)
>>
>> test=> drop table test;
>> DROP
Do you really think that this should be allowed ? I think table names
including
temp tables should (at least in combination with the owner) be unique. I
think your
example above demonstrates how confusing the application code can get.
I think it is good, that temp tables are not really inserted into system
tables,
since this would be substantial overhead.
There could be a problem with GUI tools that rely on these rows
to format their output (like pgaccess or ODBC --> M$ Access) though.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Meskes | 1999-01-29 12:26:39 | another ecpg patch |
Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-01-29 07:07:22 | equal: don't know whether nodes of type 600 are equal |