Re: is it a known issue or just a bug?

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
>
>>I don't think there's any very clean way to fix this sort of problem in
>>general. We could make this particular example work if
>
>
> Frankly, I don't think there *is* any safe way to use volatile functions in
> subqueries -- I certainly avoid it, except now() and random() which as
> discussed are special cases. Perhaps a WARNING is in order?
>

Personally I like Josh's idea. A warning would be a nice thing.

I have just looked at Oracle and SQL Server to find out what those
systems are doing ...

Oracle has a very interesting concept *g*:

ORA-02287 sequence number not allowed here:
The usage of a sequence is limited and it can be used only in few areas
of PL/SQL and SQL coding.

The following are the cases where you can't use a sequence:
For a SELECT Statement:
1. In a WHERE clause
2. In a GROUP BY or ORDER BY clause
3. In a DISTINCT clause
4. Along with a UNION or INTERSECT or MINUS
5. In a sub-query

--------------------------

SQL Server does not support sequences the way we know it so it is hard
to compare.

I did not have time to test DB2 yet.

Thanks a lot,

Hans

--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/720/10 1234567 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at