Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > ... Would it be possible to have either a GUC setting or a grammar > > > change to allow TEMPORARY tables to be dropped at transaction commit? > > > > This seems like a not unreasonable idea; but the lack of other responses > > suggests that the market for such a feature isn't there. Perhaps you > > should try to drum up some interest on pgsql-general and/or pgsql-sql. > > I was wondering if it made sense to remove temp tables on transaction > finish if the temp table was created in the transaction? That wouldn't > require any syntax change. Seems non-standard though, and I can imagine > a few cases where you wouldn't want it.
That is what I want to do, except by extending the grammar. I must admit to actually being surprised that a TEMP table created inside a transaction lived after the transaction completed. That's when I looked at the standard and saw that PostgreSQL's implementation was correct. I would think for most people session-long temp tables are more the exception than the rule. But I guess SQL92 doesn't think so. Regardless, a couple of other people have shown some interest in the idea. I'll post it to general as well as Tom suggests... Mike Mascari [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
