Perhaps the zeroes are a reminder that in many cases you would want to use @comboHouse (or whatever it is that holds the flags, a column perhaps) instead of 0...

Thanks for rubbing it in again 🙂

And I MUST apologise for calling this a bug in another discussion: I have checked some other database engines (Firebird, trying it,...

"If you mean ..."

All I mean is that if you allow "SELECT *" then you should make it always behave like "SELECT *" and not just when you are lucky.

I...

@tom re " Of course if you don't mid giving complete nonsense results ro your users, that's completely different."

I do mind. But the data is only incorrect because...

@tony-2

It's probably a matter of taste but I do not see the difference between REPLACE and FORCE_OVERWRITE, except more characters to type; perhaps because English isn't...

@ Andre Guerreiro Neto

I am not always in line with the consensus here (as you can see from my earlier posts) but I'd say yes.

For example I might want...

I am usually quite happy to criticise what I think are bad aspects of SQL Server (or other products), but in this case I am more inclined to say:

Which...

@ Andre Guerreiro Neto

Yes I would agree with that, because IF the views are used for those purposes then modifying the underlying schema will probably break long chains of dependencies,...

@"El" Jerry: I understand that it might be an optimisation, but if it is then it is a very buggy one.

Besides, if the reason for this behaviour is really...

Good question.

But sad to see that this is not generally regarded as a massive bug. If and when I write 'SELECT *' then I really mean 'SELECT *' at execution...

" a million years ago attending Cobol training"

I am from the same era, but with a Fortran background. That might explain our different attitudes towards "fudging the numbers".

Pretty much...

"And there is nothing wrong with cursors when there is no good alternative."

At least we agree on that 🙂

From the Oracle community I also get the impression that the main...

"The resultant fee then has to be allocated back to the contributing accounts"

That's fine if everybody agrees on a necessarily arbitrary allocation method (or result) and then apply that. But...

"So is this fraud?"

There is a difference between rounding because of "technical restrictions" such as the ones you mention and fudging for no good reason other than to keep ignorant...

"It isn't fraud. It is just math."

As a mathematician I strongly object to that. Math isn't the problem. Unreasonable requirements (violating basic mathematics) are.

Either the VAT should be calculated...