Re: BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 11:11:58PM +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > The following bug has been logged online:
> > >
> > > Bug reference: 1947
> > > Logged by: Tony Marston
> > > Email address: tony(at)marston-home(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk
> > > PostgreSQL version: 8.0.3
> > > Operating system: Windows XP
> > > Description: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function
> > > Details:
> > >
> > > I would like the option to use CONCAT(field1, ' ', field2)
> > > instead of the vertical bar syntax (field1 || ' ' || field2) as
> > > this is also available in other popular databases (MySQL,
> > > ORACLE). I am trying to develop applications which are daabase
> > > independent, so the use of common SQL syntax is very important.
> >
> > Fix your application so that it uses the SQL standard ||,
>
> Not until you fix your product so that it follows the current SQL
> standard TO THE LETTER and contains NOTHING which is not in the
> standard!

In case you did not know, PostgreSQL Global Development Group is an
all-volunteer organization. If you have something constructive to
contribute, please feel free to mention it, but please also to recall
that PGDG does not owe you anything, and whinging about how we use a
common, standard thing rather than a rare, non-standard thing is going
to get you somewhere between nothing and negative. People will
remember your contributions, for good or ill. So far, it's for ill.

> It is a well-known fact that every database vendor includes their
> own "extensions" to the SQL standard simply because they want to
> offer more functionality to their users, and they can't wait for it
> to be formally documented in the standard. It is also a well known
> fact that extensions made by one database vendor may also be adopted
> by other vendors in order to maintain a level of compatibility.

This is not one of those cases.

> Are you honestly going to tell me that if your user base requested
> certain additional functionality that you would refuse to include it
> simply because it was "not in the standard"?

Several proposals have been rejected because they violated the
standard. This is why there is no CONNECT BY syntax for trees, but
there will be a WITH RECURSIVE syntax at some point.

Regards,
David.
--
David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!