Re: A simple notation, again

From: paul c <>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:38:17 GMT
Message-ID: <Zx5oi.132999$1i1.114722_at_pd7urf3no>

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?

p Received on Fri Jul 20 2007 - 18:38:17 CEST

Original text of this message