why do we have rd_istemp?

Started by Robert Haasalmost 16 years ago4 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1Robert Haas
robertmhaas@gmail.com

Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp. So why have both?

...Robert

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Robert Haas (#1)
Re: why do we have rd_istemp?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp. So why have both?

Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.

regards, tom lane

#3Bruce Momjian
bruce@momjian.us
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: why do we have rd_istemp?

Tom Lane wrote:

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp. So why have both?

Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.

Is this a TODO or something we want to clean up?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +

#4Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Bruce Momjian (#3)
Re: why do we have rd_istemp?

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Tom Lane wrote:

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

Given "Relation rel", it looks to me like rel->rd_rel->relistemp will
always give the same answer as rel->rd_istemp. So why have both?

Might be historical --- relistemp is pretty new.

Is this a TODO or something we want to clean up?

Doesn't strike me that it's worth the amount of code that would have to
change. rd_istemp is known in a lot of places. Replacing it with a
double indirection doesn't seem attractive anyway.

regards, tom lane