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

Re: [PATCHES] SQL conformance related patch

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
Date: 2004-11-28 21:35:25
Message-ID: 1101677725.2963.63.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-patches
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

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Bojidar MihajlovDate: 2004-11-30 13:56:21
Subject: Large objects through ODBS
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-11-28 20:39:35
Subject: Re: Section, Regular Expression Matching Rules

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2004-11-28 22:14:32
Subject: Re: [BUGS] solaris non gcc compiler debug options
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-11-28 03:33:12
Subject: Re: Cache last known per-tuple offsets to speed long tuple

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