On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:16 PM, bricklen<brick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Interesting idea. Preferably this operation could be done in straight SQL > in > > a single transaction, to fit in with the way our application works, but > if > > that's not possible I may need to go the temporary table route. > > Temp tables can be included in a transaction, and they're not visible > to other connections. > Yeah I know, but I was thinking more of replacing this query with vanilla SQL. Maybe that's just not be feasible.
