From: | Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: features required for SQL 92 conformance |
Date: | 2004-02-27 17:10:17 |
Message-ID: | 20040227120929.C56848@xeon.unixathome.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dan,
>
> > > > Claims of "conformance" are a bit specious when there isn't much of a
> > > > standards body on this anymore. And vendors that consider themselves
> > > > commercially important are quite prepared to ignore standards whenever
> > > > it seems convenient.
> > >
> > > Yeah, why do you think they disbanded the compliance team in the first
> > > place? Just ask Joe Celko ....
> >
> > I haven't spoken with Joe in years.. why don't you tell us?
>
> I thought it was self-evident from my statement.
It wasn't. That's why I asked. :) I'm sure I wasn't the only one.
> The largest vendors weren't happy with their scores on SQL
> compliance, and by the late 90's had come to dominate the SQL committee.
> So they eliminated conformance testing so that Oracle, SQL Server, etc.
> wouldn't look so bad.
Ahhh, this I did not know.
> And Joe resigned the committee ... probably over that and other things.
Thank you.
--
Dan Langille - BSDCan: http://www.bsdcan.org/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | janos | 2004-02-27 18:19:15 | Re: Collaboration Tool Proposal |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-02-27 17:05:48 | Re: features required for SQL 92 conformance |