From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <ads(at)pgug(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgeu-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Flyer nr. 1 |
Date: | 2008-01-20 14:03:23 |
Message-ID: | 1200837803.4255.527.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgeu-general |
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 14:48 +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
>
> > There is only one SQL Standard and it is called SQL:2003. It
> supercedes
> > all previous versions, so quoting compliance with multiple versions
> has
> > no meaning. (If you are compliant with SQL-92 but not SQL:2003 then
> you
> > are no longer compliant with the SQL Standard). There are no RDBMS
> yet
> > fully compliant with SQL:2003.
>
> This is correct, but ...
> As you state, no RDBMS is fully compliant with SQL:2003. So in most
> cases people go and look, what else from previous standards is
> available.
"Previous standards" are historical, so comparing current features with
the previous standard is like saying I would have come first if I'd gone
back in time to the Moscow Olympics.
It's much easier just to mention the present standard and our present
level of compliance to it.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2008-01-20 14:09:31 | Re: Flyer nr. 1 |
Previous Message | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum | 2008-01-20 13:48:38 | Re: Flyer nr. 1 |