Ann,

I did not know you enjoyed so much to make your life harder.

I don't understand the need for points 1 and 2. I also don't understand why
restricting yourself with 4.

Temporary tables should be as easy to use as they are in Sybase's and
Microsoft's SQL Server, otherwise they loose a lot of appeal. I can't
believe that it is impossible to implement in Firebird something that works
so well in an otherwise shity database like SQL Server.


Regards,
Paulo Gaspar


Ann W. Harrison wrote:

>Given that we've largely agreed
>
>1) that temporary tables must be created in a separate
> transaction and committed before use, and
>
>2) that the definitions of temporary tables are visible
> to all attachments, and
>
>3) that the <as subquery> clause is a separate issue
> with some significant complications, and
>
>4) that a reasonable implementation of temporary tables
> is to add a (magic, invisible) field to the table
> that identifies records as belonging to a connection
>
>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.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>