From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
Date: | 2005-06-26 15:57:57 |
Message-ID: | 200506261757.57857.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway wrote:
> No, it isn't -- PL/PgSQL is not defined by the SQL standard. I guess
> you're referring to SQL/PSM, but that has only a passing resemblance
> to PL/PgSQL. Implementing SQL/PSM in some form would definitely be
> worth doing (especially now that MySQL have), but I haven't seen any
> plans to do that by adapting PL/PgSQL to SQL/PSM.
I don't claim to recall the details, but we have frequently referred to
the SQL standard when resolving issues about PL/pgSQL's syntax.
> In any case, there are plenty of cases in which we accept a superset
> of the syntax defined by the SQL standard -- DROP TABLE { RESTRICT |
> CASCADE }, for example. We have never interpreted compliance with the
> SQL specification to mean that we must *only* accept the standard's
> syntax and nothing else.
The cases were we accept a superset of the SQL standard are either
additional features, backward compatibility, or compatibility to other
systems -- none of which seem to apply here.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-06-26 17:14:11 | Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-26 15:24:54 | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelínek | 2005-06-26 17:46:32 | Re: limiting connections per user/database |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-26 15:24:54 | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |