Then <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> spoke up and said:
> > Hmm. Further perusal leads me to believe that this override is a
> > standards extension, as the clause about the tablename being unique in
> > the current namespace does not have an exception for temporary tables.
> > Nothing wrong with that, just making it clear. What's the use/case for
> > this feature? Does it come from some other DMBS?
>
> I know Informix doesn't implement it that way, and they complained
> because a program started not working. Research showed that someone had
> created a real table with the same name as the temp table.
>
> Our code even masks a real table created in the same session. Once the
> temp table is dropped, the real table becomes visible again. See the
> regression tests for an example of this.
Personally, I also like the Ingres table override feature, where if I
reference table "foo", Ingres first looks for a table "foo" owned by
me, and then one owned by the database owner. I've not explored what
happens if neither I nor the DBA owns a "foo". It's also unclear what
would happen in that case where multiple other had tables named "foo"
and sufficient permits on them to permit my access.
--
=====================================================================
| JAVA must have been developed in the wilds of West Virginia. |
| After all, why else would it support only single inheritance?? |
=====================================================================
| Finger geek@cmu.edu for my public key. |
=====================================================================