Re: SET TRANSACTION and SQL Standard

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 11:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > "If any condition required by Syntax Rules is not satisfied when the
> > evaluation of Access or General Rules is attempted and the
> > implementation is neither processing non-conforming SQL language nor
> > processing conforming SQL language in a non-conforming manner, then an
> > exception condition is raised: syntax error or access rule violation."
>
> > If we *choose* to be an SQL implementation that conforms to the SQL
> > standard, then it should throw an error.
>
> That reading would forbid any nonstandard syntax whatsoever...

No, it does allow you to choose on a case by case basis. But yes, I had
thought our (not just my) default position was to conform to the
standard.

> What this is actually describing is the "standards conformance checking"
> mode that the standard says you ought to provide, but we never have
> (nor have most other vendors AFAIK). In SQL92 this was described as
> a "SQL Flagger" and it was optional. Not sure what the latest spec
> says about that.

I've been thinking about that as something for next release.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support