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 |/