From: | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgeu-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Flyer nr. 1 |
Date: | 2008-01-20 14:27:19 |
Message-ID: | 20080120142719.GU32037@base.wars-nicht.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgeu-general |
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 02:03:23PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 14:48 +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> >
> > > There is only one SQL Standard and it is called SQL:2003. It
> > > supercedes all previous versions, so quoting compliance with
> > > multiple versions has no meaning. (If you are compliant with
> > > SQL-92 but not SQL:2003 then you are no longer compliant with the
> > > SQL Standard). There are no RDBMS yet fully compliant with
> > > SQL:2003.
> >
> > This is correct, but ...
> > As you state, no RDBMS is fully compliant with SQL:2003. So in most
> > cases people go and look, what else from previous standards is
> > available.
>
> "Previous standards" are historical, so comparing current features with
> the previous standard is like saying I would have come first if I'd gone
> back in time to the Moscow Olympics.
What if no one really implements the current standard?
> It's much easier just to mention the present standard and our present
> level of compliance to it.
Anyway, i changed the first chapter, but i'm not very happy with the
second chapter on the first page. Someone a good proposal here?
Bye
--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2008-01-21 09:53:12 | Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap |
Previous Message | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum | 2008-01-20 14:24:55 | Re: Flyer nr. 1 |