Re: [PATCHES] SQL conformance related patch

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
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: 2004-11-26 22:34:16
Message-ID: 200411262334.16250.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-patches

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.
>
> 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.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-11-26 23:39:16 Re: Regexp matching: bug or operator error?
Previous Message Kenneth Tanzer 2004-11-26 22:26:48 Re: Regexp matching: bug or operator error?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-11-27 00:01:35 Re: Improvement to pg_trgm readme
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2004-11-26 19:52:28 Re: [PATCHES] SQL conformance related patch