Leyne, Sean wrote:

>
>> I think this is a useful feature, also considering its presence in the
>> SQL specification (IIRC, it's the only feature from the core subset of
>> SQL-92 which we don't support), but I wouldn't call it really urgent
>> (although I'd assign it a higher priority than longer-then-31-char
>> identifiers-but-without-schemas :-).
>>
>
> I disagree!
>
> "Longer-then-31-char identifiers-but-without-schemas" is an absolute priority.
>
> Length of identifiers is an issue which is independent of the schemas.
>
>
> Sean
>

I second that !

--
Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br