Re: NULLs: theoretical problems?
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:23:49 GMT
"V.J. Kumar" <vjkmail_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in
>> "V.J. Kumar" <vjkmail_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> The full 92/2003 standard compliance does require that deferrable
>>> constraints should be implemented. The entry/intermediate compliance
>>> level does not. There is no notion of "Core SQL" in the standard.
>> FYI: I pulled "feature outside Core SQL" from the heading of Table 32
>> in ISO/IEC 9075-2:1999 and Table 35 in ISO/IEC 9075-2:2003.
> Yes, you are quite right, I was under impression that they had preseved
> the entry/intermediate/full level taxonomy in '2003 but instead they use
> 'Core' and 'outside Core' terminology. Sorry about that.
> It is odd though that they consider features that are indispensable for
> any modern SQL based imlementation as not 'core'. For example,
> dynamic SQL
> alter table drop column/alter table add constraint/drop constraint
> isolation level other than serializable (this one is especially funny !)
> derived table ( select * from (select abc from t1) x)
Very odd indeed. Received on Sat Aug 18 2007 - 21:23:49 CEST