| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com (Jackson, DeJuan) |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Novice Question |
| Date: | 1999-01-14 22:56:53 |
| Message-ID: | 199901142256.RAA19577@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> OK, this is a complete novice question.
> Do we or do we not have temp tables (and/or unnamed tables)?
> If we don't why not?
> I can see them making quite a few places of current development a lot
> easier and flexible. I do realize TANSTAAFL, but as I grok it could be
> used for multiple tuple return from functions, the
> deferrable-constraints problems, implementing the SQL92 join syntax, and
> subselects in from clauses and select lists.
It is on the TODO list, and is not a hard job at all.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jackson, DeJuan | 1999-01-14 23:48:14 | RE: [HACKERS] Novice Question |
| Previous Message | Jackson, DeJuan | 1999-01-14 22:00:42 | RE: [HACKERS] Novice Question |