From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again) |
Date: | 2008-07-11 23:57:24 |
Message-ID: | 937d27e10807111657l6489dae4we2c6c133af8b9760@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 17:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > So it would seem that we need a way of handling temp tables that doesn't
>> > rely on catalog entries at all.
>>
>> That's a complete non-starter; I need go no farther than to point out
>> that it would break clients that expect to see their temp tables
>> reflected in pg_class and so forth.
>
> What does the SQL Standard say about the Information Schema I wonder/
Many apps were written long before we had one. Not too mention that it
doesn't provide anything like all the info that PostgreSQL-specific
tool (though not necessarily user apps) would likely need.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-12 02:18:12 | Re: PATCH: CITEXT 2.0 v3 |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-07-11 23:52:42 | Re: posix advises ... |