db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Knut Anders Hatlen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (DERBY-6605) "Derby support for SQL-92 features" topic in Reference Manual needs updating
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:05:02 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6605?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14028983#comment-14028983

Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-6605:

Deferrable constraints are SQL92F, I think. (Annex A.1 lists the restrictions on the "intermediate"
language, aka SQL92I, and it says that "<constraint attributes> shall not be specified".
So they are not intermediate, which I think means they have to be full, aka SQL92F.)

CROSS JOIN was part of 92. SQL92F, it seems. (Again, based on Annex A.1, which says "Conforming
Intermediate SQL language shall contain no <cross join>.")

As to scrolled cursors, Derby doesn't support declaring cursors in SQL, only in JDBC. We can
probably just say "JDBC" instead of "JDBC 2.0" so that we don't have to keep updating it.

> "Derby support for SQL-92 features" topic in Reference Manual needs updating
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: DERBY-6605
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6605
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Documentation
>    Affects Versions:
>            Reporter: Kim Haase
>            Assignee: Kim Haase
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: DERBY-6605.diff, rrefsql9241891.html
> The topic "Derby support for SQL-92 features" in the Reference Manual (http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.10/ref/rrefsql9241891.html)
seems not to have been substantively updated since about 2007.
> For one thing, the parenthesis "(non-deferrable)" needs to be removed from Table 8 (constraint
support). Also, I think we've supported natural joins for some time. 
> Could someone more knowledgeable than I am go through the items marked "No" and see if
any more need updating? I think those two might be the only ones, but I am not quite sure.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message