Thanks to everyone! I understood the behavior. I should write SQLs as explicit as possible from now. And I know a presence of SQL 2003 first (My knowledge was stopped at SQL 92..).
On Oct 6, 4:24 am, Dario Fassi <[email protected]> wrote: > Rami, > from practical real world usage you have a good point, since as you say, we > can have both: * for a dynamic column list view definition and a static view > definition if the view is created with a fixed column list. > > That's not a problem If such behavior is clearly documented and I can't found > a standard spec about this point. > Maybe this is more a convenience implementation decision than a standard > contract, I don't know. > > Any way as Sergei as stated take a way distinct from most other dbms can have > portability consequences, however I do not see them here. > > regard > Dario > > El 05/10/10 15:29, Rami Ojares escribi : > > > > > I do agree on the view stability issue. > > But then again someone who wants his views to stay stable could always > > create it by explicitly naming the columns in the definition. > > And someone who wants his view to be dynamic could use the star notation. > > > All in all this is still a convenience feature because even now one can > > always recreate the view when the underlying table changes. > > > - Rami -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
