"Ann W. Harrison" <aharrison@...> wrote:

>
> >First of all, we've already almost agreed on GTTs.
>
> Yes, but we got into this because we had a sponsor for the
> feature. It turns out that the sponsor doesn't want what
> we're agreeing on.

First, since GTTs and LTTs share the same storage strategy and GTTs are
easier to implement, I'd consider it logical to see GTTs done first. Then,
we do lots of useful (hopefully) things that are not explicitly sponsored.
Finally, we have devs who are interested in this task. What else do we need
to start working?

> >As a personal note, I'd stick with <created LTTs> as session-scope

objects

> >and <declared LTTs> as routine-scope objects to make everyone happy. This

is

> >one of those very rare cases when I avoid following the standard exacty

and

> >treat it the way it's valuable for us and our users.
>
> If we choose to implement a non-standard feature, we should
> not bend the language of the standard to fit our feature but
> should implement it with our own language. Always.

I also proposed a way to solve this issue: SESSION TEMPORARY TABLE. In the
future it may become a synonym for LOCAL TEMPORARY TABLE or may be kept as
our non-standard extention if another (standard compliant) LOCAL TT
implementation will be in progress.


Dmitry