[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Do we agree on an RFC-Erratum for RFC2578

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

 (2)  a conceptual row must contain at least one columnar object which is
      not an auxiliary object.  In the event that all of a conceptual
      row's columnar objects are also specified in its INDEX clause, then
      one of them must be accessible, e.g., have a MAX-ACCESS clause of
      "read-only". (Note that this situation does not arise for a
      conceptual row allowing create access, since such a row will have a
      status column which will not be an auxiliary object.)

So this makes it clearer that a table that has only auxiliary objects of which one of them has a MAX-ACCESS of accessible-for-notify or read-only.

I support this change.

I think an erratum is a better solution than a clarifying statement, and hope this change is consistent with the original intent of the document authors.

Thanks,

Mark

--
Mark Ellison                        Ellison Software Consulting, Inc.
<http://www.scguild.com/Resume/1321R.html>