Re: [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > > > Speaking of other parts of the SQL:2003 standard, how about one
> > > > > section each that mentions them? There's
> > > > >
> > > > > Part 4: SQL/PSM (Persistent Stored Modules)
> > > > > Part 9: SQL/MED (Management of External Data) (my favorite)
> > > > > Part 10: SQL/OLB (Object Language Binding)
> > > > > Part 11: SQL/Schemata
> > > > > Part 13: SQL/JRT (Java Routines and Types)
> > > >
> > > > I don't know anything about them.
> > >
> > > We claim SQL standard compliance, so since those are part of
> > > SQL:2003, we probably ought to mention them. SQL/PSM is a
> > > programming language that lives inside the database, and DB2 and
> > > MySQL have it. SQL/MED lets people talk to other data stores.
> > > SQL/OLB appears to be derived from equel, which we have as ecpg.
> > > SQL/Schemata contains the information schema. SQL/JRT appears to
> > > bear some similarity to PL/Java and PL/J.
> >
> > I think the big question is whether we are ever going to implement
> > these? I think we need to decide that before I mention them.
>
> The SQL/Schemata thing is already in. I think we should at least

Uh, what is the SQL/Schemata? Are you sure it is in CVS?

> mention which features that we already have are from what part of the
> standard. As far as the rest of the standard goes, we might want to
> mention whether we've even considered any of each piece in the TODO
> list, and what sub-pieces, if any, are already included/scheduled/too
> silly to contemplate :)

Well, this seems like something that belongs in our chapter on how we
support the SQL standard.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +