RE: DDS to SQL - date definition

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Jeff Crosby
>
> In any case, I related to them that in trying to modernize into SQL DML
> from
> DDS, this would definitely slow me down, as well as anyone else using date
> data types, due to massive numbers of recompiles.  It wouldn't surprise me
> if time and timestamp fields turned out that way too.

Jeff, I seem to remember this exact symptom (mismatched format IDs) coming
up a while back, although I can't recall if it was triggered by date fields.
I remember thinking at the time that while it didn't affect me personally,
it would certainly be a huge issue for people trying to move from DDS to
DDL, and then subsequently wondering why there wasn't more clamor.

I would like to know who is telling you that this is designed behavior,
because we'll need to explain to them very carefully that the designed
behavior is incorrect: there must be transparency at the format level
between DDL and DDS generated files.

Joe