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: 3C1E6B60.7080307@pacifier.com (view raw or flat)
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


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 © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group