| From: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Global temporary tables surprise |
| Date: | 2010-06-14 14:30:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4c163d1a.c32ce70a.5fd5.ffffa8fc@mx.google.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 04:54:22AM -0400, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> So, Postgresql will simply ignore "GLOBAL" or "LOCAL" and will create a
> local temporary table anyway? Why is that? Don't get me wrong, local
> temporary tables are a great replacement for cursors, but global
> temporary tables have their uses too.
Because it hasn't been implemented yet.
> Is there any hope that we will
> have global temporary tables in the foreseeable future? Another popular
> variety of databases supports global temporary tables but not local
> temporary tables. It would be very nice to have a standard terminology,
> wouldn't it?
Yes, in fact there has been talk about working on it for 9.1.
http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2010/05/global-temporary-and-unlogged-tables.html
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kelvin Lai | 2010-06-14 19:52:46 | pljava failed to install in x64 Windows 7 |
| Previous Message | Joshua Tolley | 2010-06-14 14:27:37 | Re: layout question |