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
> 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
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2001-12-17 22:02:40|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] system catalog relation of a table and a|
|Previous:||From: Philip Warner||Date: 2001-12-17 22:01:25|
|Subject: Re: Potential bug in pg_dump ... |