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

Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility?

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility?
Date: 2002-06-29 04:14:56
Message-ID: 008a01c21f23$87553560$0200a8c0@SOL (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Sure?  I don't see it.  In fact, I only see it in the 'SQL92 features we
don't have section'.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] mistake in sql99 compatibility?

> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > The cvs docs say that we support the 'WITH CHECK OPTION' on views, but
> > TODO says we don't...
> TODO updated.  Not sure when it was added but I see it in SGML docs.
> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |
>   pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2002-06-29 17:49:56
Subject: Re: Are these groups "unauthorized"?
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2002-06-29 01:14:17
Subject: Re: Object Oriented Features

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group