From: | Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: temporary functions (and other object types) |
Date: | 2010-11-05 19:38:53 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikM6TEsoJTa8YqZp9F3qQQ98zTRP18qpM5FDhgp@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5 November 2010 20:36, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A customer of ours has the need for temporary functions. The use case
> is writing test cases for their databases: the idea being that their
> code creates a temp function which then goes away automatically at
> session end, just like a temp table. It's said that this makes things
> generally easier for the test harness.
>
> Other object types that would also be useful to have as temp-able are
> types, domains and casts; and perhaps (if someone sees a need)
> aggregates and operators. Other objects are not necessary, but if
> someone thinks that some more stuff should be made temp-able, we'd try
> to go for as general a solution as possible. But these aren't critical;
> functions are the main pain point.
>
> I haven't looked at the code at all to see how this would be
> implemented; I'm basically asking whether there would be objections to
> having this feature in core.
>
>
Hi,
is that possible to create all that in one transaction? You could then make
rollback and all objects will just disappear.
regards
Szymon
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-11-05 19:46:42 | Re: temporary functions (and other object types) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-11-05 19:36:37 | temporary functions (and other object types) |