Message-ID: <4BD4B44B.6030406@agliodbs.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:29:47 -0700
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100217 Shredder/3.0.3pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: global temporary tables
References: <u2o603c8f071004231952i36642ae6u9d6a7eae6eb6ff32@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <u2o603c8f071004231952i36642ae6u9d6a7eae6eb6ff32@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert,

> (1).  What I *think* it is supposed to mean is that the table is a
> permanent object which is "globally" visible - that is, it's part of
> some non-temp schema like public or $user and it's column definitions
> etc. are visible to all backends - and it's not automatically removed
> on commit, backend exit, etc. - but the *contents* of the table are
> temporary and backend-local, so that each new backend initially sees
> it as empty and can then insert, update, and delete data independently
> of what any other backend does.

While closer to the standard, the above definition is a lot less useful 
than what I believe a lot of people want, which is a table which is 
globally visible, but has no durability; that is, it does not get 
WAL-logged or recovered on restart.  Certainly this latter definition 
would be far more useful to support materialized views.

-- 
                                   -- Josh Berkus
                                      PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                      http://www.pgexperts.com