Was there an issue I could track for this? Should I create one?
On May 26, 3:34 pm, "steve.ebersole" <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 26, 2:21 pm, Thomas Mueller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I think I understand. What if creating a local temp table wouldn't > > commit? > > Like I said earlier, this is my preferred solution. If creating the > temp table does not commit then I can do it on that initial connection > and use a true local temp table. > > > I will investigate if this can be supported. Anyway at some > > point DDL operations should be transactional (it's not high on the > > priority list so far however). What about a new syntax: > > > CREATE LOCAL TEMPORARY TABLE .... WITHOUT COMMIT; > > > It's a bit ugly I agree, but it would solve the problem for you. Like > > this, I could add support for transactional DDL step by step, and when > > everything is implemented then switch over so this becomes the > > default. > > Sounds reasonable to me short term and totally something i could > leverage immediately (well, once its available). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
