Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness?

Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Who knows. Once it gets messed up, anything can happen. The problem
> with indexes created in the same transaction as the temp table still is
> a problem, though you say your new cache code fixes that.

No, I didn't say that. The weird "notice" isn't coming out any more,
but I'm still seeing all these other bugs. It looks to me like there
are problems with ensuring that an index on a temp table is (a) temp
itself, and (b) built against the temp table and not a permanent table
of the same name.

I don't really understand how temp tables are implemented and whether
relcache.c needs to be aware of them --- is there documentation
somewhere?

regards, tom lane