> > Possible solutions: (a) rename tables in one test or the other,
> > or (b) use TEMPORARY tables in one test or the other. I kinda
> > like (b), just to exercise temp tables in some interesting new
> > ways. Whaddya think?
I have a preference for (a). If we want to test temporary tables, let's
have a test which does that. But having a possible name conflict mixed
in to another test seems to be asking for trouble, or at least does not
decouple things as much as they could be.
There is a benefit to having complex tests (a great benefit) but without
also having decoupled tests the diagnostic benefit is not as clear cut
imho.
Bruce, would you have time to generate a regression test for temporary
tables? If we don't have one now, we should.
- Thomas
