| From: | Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not? |
| Date: | 2017-08-24 10:53:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+bJJbyjPK_J3-k+NjDmkUgyQ+SqkH_iaa-queoo3HP6ByB56w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Vincenzo Romano
<vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it> wrote:
> Once you accept that Postgres is already extending the standard, I
> would focus on syntax consistency and symmetry as a yet-another-extra
> value from Postgres.
>
> Moreover, "DROP TEMP TABLE..." would make it clear and explicit that
> the table is temporary.
> And it would thus "protect the programmer from typos and errors"
> (intentional tongue-in-cheek).
Given drop temp table x is just syntactic sugar to drop table
PG_TEMP.x I think the (slight) increase on the bug-surface is enough
to avoid it, as the pg_temp. makes it equally clear and explicit you
are dropping a temporary table.
And if the programmer forgets the pg_temp. it can equally forget the TEMP.
Francisco Olarte.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Francisco Olarte | 2017-08-24 10:58:04 | Re: DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not? |
| Previous Message | Vincenzo Romano | 2017-08-24 10:48:16 | Re: DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not? |