Hello Nando,

> >> Nobody wants temporary tables as defined by the SQL standard;
>
> M> What makes you say that?
>
> I have read the lists. OK, *almost* nobody, just to cater for those
> that use to answer "sure, why not?" to every feature proposal. ;-)

You can't use what isn't there. :-)

> M> As we have seen earlier, there are several
> M> database systems that implement them just like the SQL standard says
> M> you should. Why shouldn't we? (now or later)
>
> "We" (an all-encompassing "we" :-)) should, at the appropriate time
> and if they serve a widespread need. That's not the case right now I
> fear. I think that's Ann's point. Someone asked for something,
> Firebird may provide that something and use proprietary terminology
> and semantics, or provide something different using standard
> terminology and semantics. Not a mix of the two.

Agreed. And the right time - apparently - is not now. The issue has
been investigated, it doesn't do what the sponsor wanted, so drop
it (for now).

Fine.

With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
Server.
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com