Re: unlogged tables

Robert Haas  wrote:
> If there's any third-party code out there that is checking
> rd_istemp, it likely also needs to be revised to check whether
> WAL-logging is needed, not whether the relation is temp. The way
> I've coded it, such code will fail to compile, and can be very
> easily fixed by substituting a call to RelationNeedsWAL() or
> RelationUsesLocalBuffers() or RelationUsesTempNamespace(),
> depending on which property the caller actually cares about.
Hmm...  This broke the SSI patch, which was using rd_istemp to omit
conflict checking where it was set to true.  The property I care
about is whether tuples in one backend can be read by an transaction
in a different backend, which I assumed would not be true for
temporary tables.  Which of the above would be appropriate for that
use?
-Kevin