Hi,

my guess is that it's failing on [no table name] and the [null].
The [not null] part isn't the problem and works fine.

Care to post the complete statement if you think there's a problem?

Martijn Tonies
InterBase Workbench - the developer tool for InterBase and Firebird
http://www.interbaseworkbench.com



Been working to finally getting to the latest firebird, etc, and came
across some code in a code library that basically issued the
statement: (pseudocode)

CREATE TABLE(FieldName VARCHAR(80) not null, FieldName2 VARCHAR(30)
null);

Firebird was dying on the "not null" part of the statement. And
whoever put it into the code library had the note: "SQL-92 Standard?"

I started to look through the spec and just got glazed over rather
quickly and never found whether "not null" is part of the spec. So
what I'm asking is:

1 - Do any of your SQL-92 gurus know whether it is or it isn't?

2 - If it is, is it worthwhile to report it as a conformance bug?



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]