[Note: I'm *not* an expert in the SQL standard, but I might be able to
help clarify a misunderstanding or two in the discussion so far].
Tony Marston wrote:
Support for functional dependencies is not a feature that can be turned off
in any database engine. Dependencies, whether they are functio
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 08:28:42PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tony Marston wrote:
> > I think your definition of "Feature T301 Functional Dependencies"
> > is extremely questionable. [et cetæra, ad nauseam]
>
> The issue is that Postgres is _more_ standards-compliant than MySQL,
> but Postgres
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 01:47:40PM +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
> Support for functional dependencies is not a feature that can be
> turned off in any database engine.
Repeating the same premise over and over again does not constitute an
argument. In this case, you appear to be begging the questio
tp://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 October 2008 11:53
> To: Tony Marston
> Cc: 'Gregory Stark'; pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4465: GROUP BY is n
Tony Marston wrote:
You are still missing the point - "functional dependencies" is not a
separate module that can be turned on or off with code,
It is in the SQL standard.
they are inherent in
the database design. According to relational theory any non-key field on a
table is functionally dep
You are still missing the point - "functional dependencies" is not a
separate module that can be turned on or off with code, they are inherent in
the database design. According to relational theory any non-key field on a
table is functionally dependent of the key of that table, so if you support
bo
"Tony Marston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think your definition of "Feature T301 Functional Dependencies" is
> extremely questionable. ... If you support both key and non-key columns on a
> table then you support functional dependencies whether you like it or not.
An ISO/IEC 9075 conformant
Tony Marston wrote:
I think your definition of "Feature T301 Functional Dependencies" is
extremely questionable. A functional dependency in relational theory
automatically exists where a non-key column on a table is functionally
dependent on the key of that table. It is not something that can be
Tony Marston wrote:
> I think your definition of "Feature T301 Functional Dependencies" is
> extremely questionable. A functional dependency in relational theory
> automatically exists where a non-key column on a table is functionally
> dependent on the key of that table. It is not something that c
TED]
> Sent: 14 October 2008 20:17
> To: Tony Marston
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4465: GROUP BY is not to SQL standard
>
>
> Tony Marston wrote:
> > I am using document WG3:HBA-003 H2-2003-305 dated August 2003.
> >
> > Section 7.9 - 7 of the SQL-1992 stand
Tony Marston wrote:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4465
Logged by: Tony Marston
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.3.4
Operating system: Windows XP
Description:GROUP BY is not to SQL standard
Details:
The Postgresql im
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4465
Logged by: Tony Marston
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.3.4
Operating system: Windows XP
Description:GROUP BY is not to SQL standard
Details:
The Postgresql implementation of GROUP
12 matches
Mail list logo
