Tony Marston wrote:
> You are still missing the point - "functional dependencies" is not a
> separate module that can be turned on or off with code,
It is in the SQL standard.
> they are inherent in
> the database design. According to relational theory any non-key field on a
> table is functionally dependent of the key of that table, so if you support
> both key and non-key fields on a table then you automatically support
> functional dependencies. How can you possibly say otherwise?
Again, you are confusing the SQL standard with relational theory, and an
SQL standard conformance feature name with the computer science
interpretation of that name. I suggest you read Part 1 "Framework" of
SQL 2003 which explains how SQL conformance works.
> Where does it describe in the SQL standards EXACTLY what the term
> "functional dependencies" means? Is it the same as in relational theory, or
> is it something different?
We are talking about feature T301, which is defined by the Conformance
rules that mention it. That is all that matters. It does not matter
what the name of that feature is.