RE: [GENERAL] Relations between tables.

On Thu, 20 May 1999, Jackson, DeJuan wrote:

> Not in and of itself. The FOREIGN KEY CONSTRAINT syntax is parsed but not
> implemented.

Are there plans for this _important feature_ :) being implemented?

> > MS Access has to be a poor example but I've seen tables relationed between
> > themselves.
> MS Access is a very poor example of most things SQL92.

Okay, okay, forget access. I knew I was going to draw flames on this
comparison.

> Nope this doesn't even happen in <omitted>. If you build your query
> in <omitted> and look at the SQL (go to the View menu the select SQL)
> that's generated you'll see that all <omitted> is put that part of the
> WHERE clause in for you. Most other databases aren't that
> presumptuous.

You're right. The constraint is simply a constraint - rows in this table
must have a key listed in the column/table referred to in the Primary Key.
Correct?

cr