> I newer talked about persistent data. I talked about persistent metadata.
Sure, I finally understood that detail. Now if I hear "persistent
variable", I by default understand that both metadata and data are
persistent... It requires some effort to understand the subtelty.
> I really don't propose any possible substitution of tables (relations).
> I newer did it.
Sure.
> The used terminology is not 100% clean and natural - maybe better name is
> "global temporary unshared untransactional unrelational storage" -
Hmmm. Too long:-) But these properties need to be spelled out.
> [...] I don't see any sense to have two similar storages or two
> redundant access methods - not in PostgreSQL level.
Then say so in the wiki in the cons.
Personnaly, I'm not sure. Maybe having a clean way of declaring a one-row
"singleton" table enforced by postgresql would be enough.
--
Fabien.