At 22:10 2001-11-06 , you wrote:
>Plus some folks don't think SQL99 was such a keen idea. Kline, Kline &
>Kline from O'Reilly, for example, seem to think that most of the changes
>between the two versions were vendor-inspired and don't do anything to
>improve database-building. For example, the huge focus on BLOB support
>in SQL 99 begs the question: Should BLOBs be stored in the database at
>all? Many DBAs would say no ...
>
>I'm sticking with SQL92.
Yes. You may be right in that many SQL-99 features don't really offer
significant improvements in database building. The basics were already
there in SQL-92.
But I don't agree that SQL-99 has a 'huge focus on BLOB support'. Yes,
LOB:s are defined in the standard but it includes more than that. Many of
those other features are requested and used by developers, like stored
procedures, user defined functions and triggers.
