Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > In <h6l9af$4p...@ger.gmane.org>, Emanoil Kotsev wrote: > >>Yeah, somehow SQL does not seem to be really "S"tandard :-) > > The "S" in SQL stands/stood for "Structured". However, SQL has been > standardized about 3 times, roughly the same number of times UNIX has been > standardized. However, like UNIX, each implementation has many, many > extensions that the uninformed or undisciplined commonly use. Also like > UNIX, in places where the standard has undefined or implementation-defined > behavior each implementation generally has consistent and predictable > behavior that even disciplined, experienced users may end up expecting > from an alternative implementation. > > In short, most SQL you will find is not strictly-conforming, just like > most shell scripts and C/C++ programs. hehe, I was thinking (because reading about standardization of SQL) it stands for standard. Thanks for pointing out.
I know there are non-free import/export tools if in hurry and it's important, may be it's worth paying. I've been playing with import/export sqlite - mysql/oracle. Exporting only simple sql structure works (no indices and funktions). regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org