Tim>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 05:04:09PM -0500, Thimble Smith wrote:
>>> >Can you, or anyone else from TcX, comment more constructively on the
>>> >last two paragraphs of my previous message?
>>> I don't know what the answer is, because I don't know that code
>>> well enough. It seems like the server should be able to copy from
>>> a temporary results table to the client and unlock the tables used
>>> in the query. It would be nice to be able to force this to happen,
>>> either in the SQL statement or with a connection flag (or both).
>>> >Also, Alexandre has just observed that the problem does not appear to
>>> >be resolved by adding an ORDER BY. That doesn't match your explanation
>>> >of the cause of the problem.
>>> >I believe that there is a serious concurrency issue here that needs
>>> >addressing, not dismissing.
>>> I will look into it, and find out what it would take to make this
>>> happen (or, maybe find out why it isn't happening and give a full
Tim>> Thank you. Much appreciated.
MW> A last note about this thread:
MW> It would be trivial to add a new flag that will force creation of
MW> temporary sets on file.
MW> Thimbley should be able to do this for MySQL 3.23.14 :)
And it would be great if instead of using a temporary table on the
hard disk (slow) a memory buffer would be use if SMALL_RESULT is
notified in the query.