On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:51:19PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> I have heard that Gabriel has, at different conferences at different
> times, taken and argued opposite positions on this; he has both argued
> "Worse is Better" and that "Worse isn't Better."
Yes. That history is actually outlined b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Sullivan) writes:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:02:27PM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
>> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
>> why it didn't make it into the standards.
>
> Li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
>> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
>> why it didn't make it into the standards.
>>
>> On a slightly unrelated note, I had the opp
Peter Kovacs wrote:
> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
> why it didn't make it into the standards.
>
> On a slightly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to work with EQUEL
> for a short period
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:02:27PM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
> why it didn't make it into the standards.
Likely because neither Oracle Corp nor IBM nor (at the
I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
why it didn't make it into the standards.
On a slightly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to work with EQUEL
for a short period of time some 15 years ago before
