From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PG 7.2b4 bug? |
Date: | 2001-12-17 22:02:08 |
Message-ID: | 3C1E6B60.7080307@pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
>
>>Most language standards - at least the ones I've worked
>>on - require compliant implementations to define and document
>>implementation-defined behavior ...
>>
>
> SQL99 saith:
>
> g) implementation-defined: Possibly differing between SQL-
> implementations, but specified by the implementor for each
> particular SQL-implementation.
>
> h) implementation-dependent: Possibly differing between SQL-
> implementations, but not specified by ISO/IEC 9075, and not
> required to be specified by the implementor for any particular
> SQL-implementations.
>
> Behavior of nondeterministic functions falls in the second category ...
Yep, those are the definitions I'm used to. OK, then, since this is
implementation-dependent, not implementation-defined, PG's off the hook
entirely!
--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-12-17 22:02:40 | Re: [PATCHES] system catalog relation of a table and a |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2001-12-17 22:01:25 | Re: Potential bug in pg_dump ... |