Re: SQL Implementation

From: Jonathan Leffler <jleffler_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 05:39:32 GMT
Message-ID: <oe7gb.81$f%6.7@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>

Christopher Browne wrote:

> In the last exciting episode, bbadour_at_golden.net (Bob Badour) wrote:
>

>>"Ryan" <rgaffuri_at_cox.net> wrote in message news:<fQleb.32913$0Z5.25360_at_lakeread03>...
>>
>>>How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are
>>>certified. Will they be?
>>
>>More importantly, why would you want them to implement SQL99 ?

>
>
> Presumably because it was a more recent and more "functional" set of
> specifications than the previous standards.
>
> Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
> explaining why...

Have you looked at all the stuff that's in SQL-99? Some of it does not bear much thinking about. There's also a few useful tidbits. On average though, it got an awful lot of everything including the kitchen sink added to it.

One useful feature: savepoints and explicit transaction boundaries. One dubious feature: table inheritance

-- 
Jonathan Leffler                   #include <disclaimer.h>
Email: jleffler_at_earthlink.net, jleffler_at_us.ibm.com
Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/

Received on Mon Oct 06 2003 - 00:39:32 CDT