On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 05:39, Curt Sampson wrote: > Because SQL99 is non-relational in many ways, so I guess they > figured making it non-relational in one more way can't hurt. > > I mean come on, this is a language which started out not even > relationally complete!
Could you point me to some pure relational languages ? Preferrably not pure academic at the same time ;) BTW, what other parts of SQL do you consider non-relational (and thus candidates for dropping) ? ------------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
