Re: Is there really no interest in SQL Standard?

On Monday, September 19, 2011 9:20 AM, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:58:49AM -0400, Joe Abbate wrote:
> > On 09/19/2011 09:50 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > FWIW, the fact that the drafts *are* confidential is symptomatic
> > > of everything which is wrong with the ISO.
> >
> > Maybe it's time for an open source SQL standard, one not controlled
> > by the "big guys" and their IP claims.
>
> That's probably not a bad idea. The down side is that it'll be the work
> of decades, not years, to get this thing going.

If anyone wants to start on something like this, I think it
could start as a rigorous review of PostgreSQL semantics.

On Monday, September 19, 2011 4:44 PM, "Greg Smith"
<greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Not spending as much time sitting in meetings and fighting with other
> vendors is one of the competitive advantages PostgreSQL development has
> vs. the "big guys". There needs to be a pretty serious problem with
> your process before adding bureaucracy to it is anything but a backwards
> move. And standardization tends to attract lots of paperwork...

Perhaps focusing only on PostgreSQL semantics and edge cases is
also where the effort should stop.

I'm not offering to do this. I think this work would only be really
valuable if it significantly improved the already excellent
documentation and regression tests -- ie, provides direct user value.

Best,

Clark