Subject Re: [ib-support] Unique key that accepts null
Author Brad Pepers
On Sunday 12 August 2001 16:28, Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:
> "Brad Pepers" <brad@...> wrote in message
> 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.

Thats not what you said at all. You said "A unique constraint should accept
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

Brad Pepers