|From:||Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Troels Arvin <troels(at)arvin(dot)dk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCHES] SQL conformance related patch|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 22:34, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The sections Supported Features and Unsupported Features cover both
> > Mandatory (Core) and Optional features in the same section. It would
> > be better to separate these, just as the SQL standard itself does in
> > Annex F - SQL Feature Taxonomy.
Please note that all that has been suggested is splitting a table into
two pieces, so that it matches the SQL:2003 standard's way of presenting
this information, as laid out in Annex F - SQL Feature Taxonomy.
I found that arrangement useful in understanding the standard and wished
to recommend it to the project.
> > This seems especially important for the Unsupported Features section,
> > since the length of the list makes it look like 100% support is a
> > long way off, whereas it is only 14 features away, and many of them
> > minor [see Troels' low hanging fruit list on this thread]
> If the "core" set of features were at all useful in practice then I
> would think about this, but it is not, so we'd just end up arranging
> the tables for marketing purposes instead of information purposes. Ten
> years ago this would have been equivalent to making a separate section
> for SQL 92 Entry level and rejoicing upon completion, while realizing
> that a real-life DBMS needs at least Intermediate level.
I agree completely with your assessment of SQL-92 Entry and Intermediate
level. Having recently spent an hour or two looking at the SQL:2003
standard, I don't think the analogy that SQL:2003 Core is similar to
SQL-92 Entry level is a useful one. I understand why people would think
this, because I would definitely have thought exactly the same, before I
For example, Microsoft SQL Server claims SQL-92 Entry level. If SQL:2003
were similar then they would simply switch the claim to SQL:2003 without
problem. They do not, because they cannot.
Please review what the list of SQL:2003 Core features contains:
SAVEPOINTS, outer joins, triggers, derived tables, quantified
sub-selects, constraints etc.. but not object-relational features, which
are only Optional. IMHO these features are useful in practice.
Yes, there are also many Optional features that are also desirable.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
|Next Message||Bojidar Mihajlov||2004-11-30 13:56:21||Large objects through ODBS|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2004-11-28 20:39:35||Re: Section 22.214.171.124, Regular Expression Matching Rules|
|Next Message||Kris Jurka||2004-11-28 22:14:32||Re: [BUGS] solaris non gcc compiler debug options|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2004-11-28 03:33:12||Re: Cache last known per-tuple offsets to speed long tuple|