On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Voice of All <jschulz_4587(a)msn.com> wrote:
Well the query was on the merged UNION result, which
makes it a subquery.
I'll see if 4 supports more explicit temporary table syntax as a work
around.
Ah, that's a pain, didn't realize you couldn't do that, but it makes
sense, I guess. You can of course CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE, but I don't
think that's replication-safe (because the table is lost if the slave
crashes). Do we use temporary tables anywhere? If not, you could
just do it on the app side, which is how I guess we do it now.