Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables

> 2020年1月29日 下午9:48，Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> 写道：
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:12 PM 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Opinion by Pavel
>>> + rel->rd_islocaltemp = true; <<<<<<< if this is valid, then the name of field "rd_islocaltemp" is not probably best
>>> I renamed rd_islocaltemp
>>
>> I don't see any change?
>>
>> Rename rd_islocaltemp to rd_istemp in global_temporary_table_v8-pg13.patch
>
> In view of commit 6919b7e3294702adc39effd16634b2715d04f012, I think
> that this has approximately a 0% chance of being acceptable. If you're
> setting a field in a way that is inconsistent with the current use of
> the field, you're probably doing it wrong, because the field has an
> existing purpose to which new code must conform. And if you're not
> doing that, then you don't need to rename it.
Thank you for pointing it out.
I've rolled back the rename.
But I still need rd_localtemp to be true, The reason is that
1 GTT The GTT needs to support DML in read-only transactions ,like local temp table.
2 GTT does not need to hold the lock before modifying the index buffer ,also like local temp table.

Please give me feedback.

Wenjing