| From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL99 feature list |
| Date: | 2002-06-14 16:10:45 |
| Message-ID: | web-1527488@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas,
> So, a question: should I list all features in the same table, with
> the
> comment field indicating if something is not (yet) supported, or
> should
> I split the features into two tables for supported and unsupported
> features? The former keeps all of the information together if someone
> is
> looking something up by feature, and the latter reduces the number of
> required comments and makes it easier to see the complete list of
> supported features.
Can't we put the list in a database and generate both? <grin>
Seriously, I vote for 2 lists.
-Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-06-14 16:21:26 | Re: Non-standard feature request |
| Previous Message | Matthew Tedder | 2002-06-14 15:12:33 | Big Test Environment Feature |