Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 11:18, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> writes:
> > > > I'm thinking that temporary views should be pretty trivial to
> > > > implement.
> > >
> > > ... except not so trivial, per the rest of your note.
> > >
> > > Do we actually need any such feature? Views on temp tables already work
> > > correctly in CVS tip: the implicit DROP CASCADE on temp tables at
> > > backend exit makes such views go 'way too.
> >
> > Oh. but RESTRICT is the default. Seems like the view should go away no
> > matter what, and if they mix temp and non-temp tables, is it obvious
> > that the view will disappear if they didn't specify TEMP on view
> > creation.
>
> When the backend exits the code that removes temp tables is CASCADE by
> default and anything depending on it will disappear.
Oh, OK, that is interesting. So that only leaves the issue of not
specifying TEMP in a case of views using mixed temp/non-temp tables. We
don't specify TEMP when creating an index on a temp table, and it is
auto-destroyed. I guess it is OK that we don't specify TEMP on a view
creation using a temp table, except that the view can have a mix of temp
and non-temp while an index is just on one table.
I can go either way on this.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073