Re: features required for SQL 92 conformance

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:13:36 -0500, Neil Conway wrote:

>> Damn, yeah, you're right.  Neil was going to code something so that
>> "WITH UPDATE" would automatically translate into the creation of 2-3
>> rules.  But he got distracted ...
[...]
> But it hardly matters to the subject at hand: as I mentioned on IRC,
> AFAIK there is *plenty* of stuff in SQL92 we don't support.

SQL-92 or not: The lack of updatable views is still an unfortunate
shortcoming.

-- 
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend