[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14048633#comment-14048633
]
Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-6609:
-------------------------------------------
Hi Kim,
I'm done researching, so I think it's safe to start on a patch based on the
latest information. I might have missed some features or misinterpreted some,
but we can treat those as bugs later if someone finds that something is wrong.
F382: Good catch! Yes, would be good to have that fixed. VARCHAR, VARCHAR FOR
BIT DATA, CLOB and BLOB all work:
{noformat}
ij> create table t(vc varchar(10), vcb varchar(10) for bit data, c clob(10), b
blob(10));
0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
ij> alter table t alter column vc set data type varchar(100);
0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
ij> alter table t alter column vcb set data type varchar(100) for bit data;
0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
ij> alter table t alter column c set data type clob(100);
0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
ij> alter table t alter column b set data type blob(100);
0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
{noformat}
Actually, the syntax for VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA looks wrong in the reference
manual. The length argument is on the wrong spot. It should be {{columnName SET
DATA TYPE VARCHAR ( integer ) FOR BIT DATA |}} rather than {{columnName SET
DATA TYPE VARCHAR FOR BIT DATA( integer ) |}}.
F690: Yes, that looks correct on trunk.
> Documentation for SQL features should reflect current standard
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6609
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6609
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Documentation
> Affects Versions: 10.11.0.0
> Reporter: Kim Haase
> Assignee: Kim Haase
> Attachments: DERBY-6609-2.diff, DERBY-6609-2.zip, DERBY-6609-3.diff,
> DERBY-6609-3.diff, DERBY-6609-3.stat, DERBY-6609-3.zip, DERBY-6609-3.zip,
> DERBY-6609-4.diff, DERBY-6609-4.stat, DERBY-6609-4.zip, DERBY-6609-5.diff,
> DERBY-6609-5.stat, DERBY-6609-5.zip, DERBY-6609.diff, DERBY-6609.stat,
> DERBY-6609.zip
>
>
> We document Derby as an SQL-92 database. This standard is now very old, and
> we should describe how Derby conforms to the most current standard
> (SQL:2011). Knut Anders Hatlen listed the relevant features in a comment to
> DERBY-6605.
> This will involve at a minimum replacing the "Derby support for SQL-92
> features" topic
> (http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.10/ref/rrefsql9241891.html) with a new
> one that describes Derby's support for current features, with notes as needed
> indicating when the support is partial. Only features Derby supports, fully
> or partially, should be listed. We should state that features not listed are
> not supported.
> The information would be taken from
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/SQLvsDerbyFeatures (which currently goes only
> through the 2003 standard). Listing the Feature IDs in the documentation
> would also be helpful.
> Other topics should be changed as needed. For example, is the term
> "SQL92Identifier" still correct?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
