Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What I am wondering now is if we should flip the logic to reject CREATE
> >> LOCAL TEMP TABLE?  Or should we just silently accept both?  I'm leaning
> >> towards the latter, on the grounds of backward compatibility.
> 
> > Well, since we don't support modules, I think we should allow LOCAL.  If
> > we had modules, we should reject it.
> 
> Huh?  If we had modules, we'd probably actually implement it.
> 
> If you want to look ahead that far, the question is whether rejecting
> LOCAL or treating it as a noise word, today, will provide the easiest
> update path to full support for module-LOCAL temp tables.

Seems so.  I was saying we would remove LOCAL _only_ if we had modules
and didn't support LOCAL for them.

--  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