"because you realise that the point he is making is at this point, not that SQL IS relational after all, but that the Relational model is so absurd and stupid t

"because you realise that the point he is making is at this point, not that SQL IS relational after all, but that the Relational model is so absurd and stupid to begin with so as to be useless." No, I was saying that your (and Fabian Pascal's) definition of a relational database is absurd and stupid and useless. Your definition seems to be a server that enforces the relational model whereas EF Codd's definition seems to be something that enables the relational model. EF Codd's definition seems quite good. It also seems to include IBM's original SQL system and Ingres and everything similar. And your (and Pascal's and Date's) response seems to be a rather dishonest attempt to rewrite history and to change what relational means in order to make your stupid, stupid ideas work, so you can continue to whinge about SQL and NULLs. It would be a lot easier just to learn to live with the fact that people need NULLs.