🚀 go-pugleaf

> "As designed" means as designed by the software engineers responsible
> for the product. It may not work the way you want it to and it may not
> work the way the SQL standard says it should but, as Quinn stated, it
> does work the way the R&D team intended. Therefore, this behavior is
> not a bug. If you disagree with this please look in any dictionary of
> software engineering terms for the definition of a bug.

Bill, this simply -should- work, or it -should- be rejected with a proper
error message.

The "no current record for fetch operation" is kinda strange, don't you
think?

You can get this error when joining with Stored Procedures for example. It's
a message that tells the user -absolutely nothing-.

Heck, I'm pretty sure this message is NOT raised because of the mixed
join syntax, because it's not raised during parsing! It's raised during
fetching
cause the optimizer generated some execution path that's flawed.

If R&D continues to say this mixed join syntax shouldn't work, then they
should reject it.

> I certainly agree with you that IB should be changed so that SQL that
> does not execute correctly either does not execute at all or that it
> does execute correctly. I do disagree with you in that I think the best
> fix for IB is to generate an error message and not execute the SQL.
> There are too many move valuable things that R&D can spend time on to
> invest their time in making IB support mixed mode joins.



-- 
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com