Separation of DDL and DML - was: Early and late binding.
From: Jonathan Leffler <jleffler_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:58:57 GMT
Message-ID: <510Bf.2155$Dk.888_at_newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:58:57 GMT
Message-ID: <510Bf.2155$Dk.888_at_newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
x wrote:
> With a SQL DBMSs one is forced to separate DDL from DML which may or may not
> be a good thing.
OK - I'm going to bite. In what respects does SQL enforce DDL separate
from DML? And if you didn't do it the SQL way, how would you do it?
I suspect I know parts of the answer to the first question - but I do
not understand why you think it a bad thing. I have no ideas about the
second question yet.
--
Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h>
Email: jleffler_at_earthlink.net, jleffler_at_us.ibm.com
Guardian of DBD::Informix v2005.02 -- http://dbi.perl.org/
Received on Mon Jan 23 2006 - 08:58:57 CET