Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Counter proposal to Temporary tables |
---|---|
Author | Aage Johansen |
Post date | 2004-11-30T20:22:25Z |
Ann W. Harrison wrote:
read/change or otherwise muck around in data that doesn't belong to them.
--
Aage J.
> Given that we've largely agreedWith "conventional table" one will need well-behaved clients who won't
> ...
> why do we need temporary tables at all? Why not use
> a conventional table with fields defined to contain
> the connection identifier and the current date? Those
> two fields can be filled in with triggers. Create a
> view that excludes the connection and date and filters
> on the connection, and you've got a temporary table,
> lacking only cleanup. Use a simple procedure that
> filters on the date field from time to time to remove
> data more than two weeks old.
>
> Not perfect, certainly, but free, and doesn't involve
> mucking with internals at all.
read/change or otherwise muck around in data that doesn't belong to them.
--
Aage J.