Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Counter proposal to Temporary tables |
---|---|
Author | Ann W. Harrison |
Post date | 2004-12-01T18:21:08Z |
At 10:34 AM 12/1/2004, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
standard modules have anything to do with Firebird?
What people coming from Sybase/MSSQL want are not what the
standard calls "temporary tables." We can do that, but
we shouldn't pretend that using the language of the standard
makes a non-standard feature standard-compliant.
Regards,
Ann
>"Ann W. Harrison" <aharrison@...> wrote:Does anybody seriously want to make an argument that SQL
> >
> > 2) that the definitions of temporary tables are visible
> > to all attachments, and
>
>Except LTTs in terms of some guys here.
standard modules have anything to do with Firebird?
> > why do we need temporary tables at all?But is the feature either powerful or fast? I think not.
>
>Because we need a powerful fast feature instead of a workaround.
What people coming from Sybase/MSSQL want are not what the
standard calls "temporary tables." We can do that, but
we shouldn't pretend that using the language of the standard
makes a non-standard feature standard-compliant.
Regards,
Ann