Re: SQL99

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.