Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PG 7.2b4 bug?

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: (view raw or whole 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 

Don Baccus
Portland, OR,,

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-12-17 22:02:40
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] system catalog relation of a table and a
Previous:From: Philip WarnerDate: 2001-12-17 22:01:25
Subject: Re: Potential bug in pg_dump ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group