On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 02:06:16PM -0400, Chuck McDevitt wrote:
> In general, we wouldn't want to support any de facto standard that:
>
> 1. Is supported only by one vendor
> 2. Causes any standard SQL statement to fail, or return a different
> answer from the standard.
>
> The proposed change doesn't fail either of these.
From what I can see upthread, it fails 1 and possibly 2. Given that
we don't seem to know _why_ it is forbidden, there could well be a
case under 2 is a problem, and we haven't thought of it.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Everything that happens in the world happens at some place. --Jane Jacobs
