"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> John Smith wrote:
>> [3] I am not certain how widespread they might be, but I think there
>> may be some backward compatibility concerns with the patch you are
>> proposing.
> Well, the current behavior is certainly broken, so an application
> relying on it is in trouble anyway :-(. Even if we came up with a patch
> for 8.4 to relax the limitation, I doubt it would be safe enough to
> backport to stable branches.
As Heikki pointed out later, PG 8.1 correctly enforces the restriction
against preparing a transaction that has dropped a temp table. It's
only 8.2.x and 8.3.0 that (appear to) allow this. So I'm not persuaded
by backwards-compatibility arguments.
I've applied Heikki's new patch, and I think that's as much as we can do
for 8.2 and 8.3. Any improvement in the functionality would be new
development (and not trivial development, either) for 8.4 or later.
regards, tom lane