| From: | Robert Sundstrm <robert(dot)f3a(dot)sundstrom(at)home(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL99 |
| Date: | 2001-11-13 09:27:20 |
| Message-ID: | 4.2.0.58.20011112200213.0130dbd0@snobben.mimer.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
At 22:10 2001-11-06 , you wrote:
>Plus some folks don't think SQL99 was such a keen idea. Kline, Kline &
>Kline from O'Reilly, for example, seem to think that most of the changes
>between the two versions were vendor-inspired and don't do anything to
>improve database-building. For example, the huge focus on BLOB support
>in SQL 99 begs the question: Should BLOBs be stored in the database at
>all? Many DBAs would say no ...
>
>I'm sticking with SQL92.
Yes. You may be right in that many SQL-99 features don't really offer
significant improvements in database building. The basics were already
there in SQL-92.
But I don't agree that SQL-99 has a 'huge focus on BLOB support'. Yes,
LOB:s are defined in the standard but it includes more than that. Many of
those other features are requested and used by developers, like stored
procedures, user defined functions and triggers.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian | 2001-11-13 09:30:22 | INSERT question |
| Previous Message | Otakar Kleps | 2001-11-13 08:28:58 | Help with RULE |