"Jim Starkey" <jas@...> wrote:

>
> Personally, and reasonable people can (and will) differ, that temporary
> tables aren't worth the tradeoff necessary to implement them. If we had
> a ready and willing sponsor ready to part with cold cash, well, that
> would be different. Right now, temporary tables are a fun
> implementation question, but not of known value to anyone.

I definitely see the value, as I successfully used GTTs in my Oracle
projects. It's also a technological basis for non-persistent TTs/datasets
which have an agreement to be sponsored. And finally this is a feature
existing in the SQL standard.


Dmitry