Message-ID: <4BD4B960.5010204@dunslane.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:51:28 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20071019 Fedora/1.0.9-3.fc6 pango-text
	SeaMonkey/1.0.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: global temporary tables
References: <u2o603c8f071004231952i36642ae6u9d6a7eae6eb6ff32@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BD4B44B.6030406@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD4B44B.6030406@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Josh Berkus wrote:
> 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.

These are not mutually exclusive features. What you're asking for has 
value, certainly, but it's not a temp table in the standard's terms  
(which is a feature that also has value, I believe).

cheers

andrew