| From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility? |
| Date: | 2002-06-28 19:35:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20020628193521.GB5727@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 02:57:27PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > The cvs docs say that we support the 'WITH CHECK OPTION' on views, but the
> > TODO says we don't...
>
> TODO updated. Not sure when it was added but I see it in SGML docs.
On a related note, the SQL99 feature list in the development docs says
that we support the SQL99 UNIQUE predicate. AFAIK we don't -- should
the docs be updated?
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-06-28 22:14:43 | bug in new timestamp code |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-28 19:29:37 | Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility? |