Subject | Re: [ib-support] Unique key that accepts null |
---|---|
Author | Brad Pepers |
Post date | 2001-08-12T22:48:19Z |
On Sunday 12 August 2001 16:28, Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:
only one NULL value" and also "the standard says one null at most" which is
*not* what the SQL standard says from what I've read. You said its not worth
discussing since the SQL standard doesn't allow multiple nulls when there is
a unique constraint but I'm saying that the standard says you can have
multiple nulls when using a unique clause. So not only the standard but also
other databases I've used work this way so it would be nice to change it in
Firebird.
--
Brad Pepers
brad@...
> "Brad Pepers" <brad@...> wrote in messageThats not what you said at all. You said "A unique constraint should accept
> news:01081213490200.14287@......
>
> > This directly contradicts what you have said and shows that the SQL
>
> standard
>
> > is actually *not* being followed by Firebird.
>
> It seems that I said FB does not follow SQL standard regarding unique keys,
> right? This is the reason I said we would need to change how they work and
> are enforced.
only one NULL value" and also "the standard says one null at most" which is
*not* what the SQL standard says from what I've read. You said its not worth
discussing since the SQL standard doesn't allow multiple nulls when there is
a unique constraint but I'm saying that the standard says you can have
multiple nulls when using a unique clause. So not only the standard but also
other databases I've used work this way so it would be nice to change it in
Firebird.
--
Brad Pepers
brad@...