Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] RFC: Proposal for the implementation of Temporary Tables. |
---|---|
Author | Ann W. Harrison |
Post date | 2004-11-23T16:09:59Z |
At 11:45 AM 11/23/2004, Alexandre Benson Smith wrote:
create a permanent table with the same name - one gets
an obscure index duplicate error indicating that the
table name is in use (actually, the error may be less
awful). There's no semantic difference between creating
a temporary table and creating a permanent table - data
is stored in the system tables and nothing is instantiated
until the transaction that created the table commits.
If two connection store into a temporary table, neither
will see the other's records. In practice, the data will
be stored in different locations, as if into different
tables.
Regards,
Ann
> >The same thing that happens if two connections try to
>Sorry for my ignorance... but what happens if 2 connections try to
>create a temporary table with the same name ?
create a permanent table with the same name - one gets
an obscure index duplicate error indicating that the
table name is in use (actually, the error may be less
awful). There's no semantic difference between creating
a temporary table and creating a permanent table - data
is stored in the system tables and nothing is instantiated
until the transaction that created the table commits.
If two connection store into a temporary table, neither
will see the other's records. In practice, the data will
be stored in different locations, as if into different
tables.
Regards,
Ann