Re: A simple notation, again
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:38:17 GMT
David Cressey wrote:
> Oracle RDBMS, on the other hand, did have such a prohibition. In Oracle, a
> SELECT with an ORDER BY generated a "Cursor" (or some such thing as that)
> while a SELECT without an ORDER BY generated a result table. So they
> prohibited "ORDER BY" in a view. There was a situation where such a thing
> would have been useful to me, but Oracle's punctiliousness prevented me from
> having it my way.
I can't see why they would do that. Seems more like misconception than
precision to me. Why should "ORDER BY" ever determine what other
operations are allowed?
pReceived on Fri Jul 20 2007 - 18:38:17 CEST