Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SQL:2003 keyword additions

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Troels Arvin <troels(at)arvin(dot)dk>
Subject: Re: SQL:2003 keyword additions
Date: 2004-11-24 21:00:56
Message-ID: 1101330055.4179.25.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 10:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If you are saying "we should not support the SQL standard with regard
> > to the new reserved words added in SQL:2003", I would understand, but
> > not agree.
> 
> Conformance to the SQL standard is defined such that statements that are 
> specified in the standard should work precisely as specified in the 
> standard.  It does *not* mean that statements that are not defined in 
> the standard should fail to work.  Therefore, adding more reserved key 
> words than necessary does not achieve anything in terms of SQL 
> conformance.

Returning to your original thought, the PostgreSQL reserved word list
and the standard are not the same thing. I accept the core team's
judgement that the two should not be the same, for various reasons.

I have another suggestion on how to allow both to co-exist, which I will
detail later on Hackers.

-- 
Best Regards, Simon Riggs


In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Euler Taveira de OliveiraDate: 2004-11-25 04:53:44
Subject: pt_BR FAQ updated
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-11-24 14:40:08
Subject: Re: SQL:2003 keyword additions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group