From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Khandekar <amit(dot)khandekar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: relpersistence and temp table |
Date: | 2011-07-01 14:32:08 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTin9iekQkZU0vqs3UaMzer85+2jtMg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Amit Khandekar
<amit(dot)khandekar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> In 9.1, if a table is created using an explicit pg_temp qualification,
> the pg_class.relpersistence is marked 'p', not 't'.
>
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE pg_temp.temptable (i int4);
> CREATE TABLE
>
> postgres=# select relpersistence from pg_class where relname = 'temptable';
> relpersistence
> ----------------
> p
> (1 row)
>
>
> BUt the table does go away if I exit the session:
>
> postgres=# \q
> edb-pg ~/git-pg1 $ psql
> psql (9.0.1, server 9.2devel)
> WARNING: psql version 9.0, server version 9.2.
> Some psql features might not work.
> Type "help" for help.
>
> postgres=# select relpersistence from pg_class where relname = 'temptable';
> relpersistence
> ----------------
> (0 rows)
>
> So in that sense, it does work as a temp table, but the relpersistence
> is not 't'. So, is the "temp"ness no longer identified by
> pg_class.relpersistence now?
>
>
> In RelationBuildLocalRelation(), previously, namespace was used to
> determine if the table should be marked temporary:
>
> /* it is temporary if and only if it is in my temp-table namespace */
> rel->rd_istemp = isTempOrToastNamespace(relnamespace);
>
> But in Master branch, now if I look at RelationBuildLocalRelation(),
> there is no such logic to mark relpersistence.
>
> Was this intentional or is it a bug?
That's a bug. Thanks for the report.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-07-01 15:23:03 | Re: must synchronous_standby_names be set? |
Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2011-07-01 13:42:39 | must synchronous_standby_names be set? |