RE: Big 7.1 open items

At 22:12 20/06/00 -0700, Don Baccus wrote:
>At 11:22 AM 6/21/00 +1000, Philip J. Warner wrote:
>
>>It may be worth considering leaving the CREATE TABLE statement alone.
>>Dec/RDB uses a new statement entirely to define where a table goes...
>
>It's worth considering, but on the other hand Oracle users greatly
>outnumber Compaq/RDB users these days...

It's actually Oracle/Rdb, but I call it Dec/Rdb to distinguish it from
'Oracle/Oracle'. It was acquired by Oracle, supposedly because Oracle
wanted their optimizer, management and tuning tools (although that was only
hearsay). They *say* that they plan to merge the two products.

What I was trying to suggest was that the CREATE TABLE statement will get
very overloaded, and it might be worth avoiding having to support two
storage management syntaxes if/when it becomes desirable to create a
'storage' statement of some kind.


>
>I'm not saying I like the fact, Oracle's a pain in the ass.  But when
>adopting existing syntax, might as well adopt that of the crushing
>borg.
>

Only if it is a good thing, or part of a real standard. Philosophically,
where possible I would prefer to see statement that are *in* the SQL
standard (ie. CREATE TABLE) to be left as unencumbered as possible.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|                                |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/