Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> it could be considered either a global or a local temp table per
> spec (without any module support you can't really say which it is).
That seems bogus -- without modules it is clearly not LOCAL. What
Pavel is requesting exactly matches the spec's definition of a global
temporary table, but it does make me uneasy that after accepting the
standard syntax, and behaving differently from it (including making no
distinction between GLOBAL and LOCAL declarations) we would suddenly
go to compliance on GLOBAL declarations but leave LOCAL as is.
Maybe too messy to try to improve.
-Kevin