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
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 Oliveira||Date: 2004-11-25 04:53:44|
|Subject: pt_BR FAQ updated|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2004-11-24 14:40:08|
|Subject: Re: SQL:2003 keyword additions|