Subject: Re: global temporary tables
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <12163.1272310827@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <u2o603c8f071004231952i36642ae6u9d6a7eae6eb6ff32@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272148142.4161.1598.camel@ebony>
	<g2x603c8f071004241601qbca333edmd384f9a0df596417@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272181795.4161.1604.camel@ebony>
	<i2z603c8f071004250350p35754194pd7821ce29c4461b3@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272200241.4161.1670.camel@ebony>
	<n2p603c8f071004250835x138a5924t47008cc91da09ddf@mail.gmail.com>
	<1272310247.4161.5081.camel@ebony>  <12163.1272310827@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:50:53 +0100
Message-Id: <1272311453.4161.5143.camel@ebony>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 15:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 11:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> And I don't
> >> think you can even get that far, because I don't think too many people
> >> here are going to say that we shouldn't add global temporary tables
> >> unless we can also make them work with Hot Standby.
> 
> > The policy round here for some time has been that when we implement
> > things we make them work fully and seamlessly. I don't see why Hot
> > Standby would be singled out any more than any other feature, say
> > Windows support or tablespaces should be occasionally ignored.
> 
> The current definition of Hot Standby is that it's a *read only*
> behavior.  Not read mostly.  What you are proposing is a rather
> fundamental change in the behavior of HS, and it doesn't seem to me
> that it should be on the head of anybody else to make it work.

That's a dangerous precedent you just set.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com