On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> What's your definition of "other dbs"? The above statement is quite
> >> clearly in violation of the SQL92 and SQL99 specifications:
>
> > And nowhere does it say that <column name> cannot be qualified with
> > the table name in front of it.
>
> Au contraire, that is EXACTLY what that bit of BNF is saying. If
> they'd meant to allow this construction then the BNF would refer to
> <qualified name>, not just <identifier>.
>
> > Looking at the entire message noted
> > above the list of other dbs that support it is now Oracle, Sybase,
> > MS-SQL and mysql. If "other dbs" ends up the equivilent of "everything
> > but PostgreSQL" then which one is non-standard?
>
> Out of curiosity, what do these guys do if I try the obvious
>
> insert into foo (bar.col) ...
Looks like Sybase ignores the bar:
1> create table foo(a int)
2> go
1> insert into foo(bar.a) values(1)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1> select * from foo
2> go
a
-----------
1
(1 row affected)
1>
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
