Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

From: Someone <abc_at_def.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:09:46 -0500
Message-ID: <FeKdnRpjXYtipDrcRVn-1Q@golden.net>

Howard J. Rogers suggested that:

> Noons wrote:
> 

>> HansF <news.hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:<JLupd.189555$df2.50302_at_edtnps89>...
>>
>>
>>> I suspect that DB2 would also have a lot of extensions if the standard
>>> didn't follow IBM so closely - and there has been a significant,
>>> although
>>> perhaps co-incidental <g>, history of the standard following IBM's
>>> well-thought-out suggestions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not that there is anything wrong with that! :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is a thorn in virtually every cross-vendor environment.
>>> Expanding the
>>> minimum to 128 characters (or 1024) would permit the idiots who like
>>> excessivelyLongTableOrObjectNamesThatAreGenerallyMeaningless to be
>>> happy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Count me firmly on the side of
>> excessiveLongObjectNamesThatHelpMeFindWhereTheHeckIsUpAndDown.

> 
> 
> 
> But would you be so keen on 
> EXCESSIVELONGOBJECTNAMESTHATHELPYOUFINDWHERETHEHECKISUPANDDOWN?
> 
> Ot are you after case sensitivity by default, too?

Case sensitivity in the system tables? Please, you jest.....

Just address the 30 character restriction and all is well. Simple as that.

Cheers. Received on Fri Nov 26 2004 - 08:09:46 CST