| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL feature requests |
| Date: | 2007-08-24 14:29:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20070824142932.GE19180@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 02:06:16PM -0400, Chuck McDevitt wrote:
> In general, we wouldn't want to support any de facto standard that:
>
> 1. Is supported only by one vendor
> 2. Causes any standard SQL statement to fail, or return a different
> answer from the standard.
>
> The proposed change doesn't fail either of these.
From what I can see upthread, it fails 1 and possibly 2. Given that
we don't seem to know _why_ it is forbidden, there could well be a
case under 2 is a problem, and we haven't thought of it.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
Everything that happens in the world happens at some place.
--Jane Jacobs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Charles N. Charotti | 2007-08-24 14:59:13 | Obfuscated definitions of database objects |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-08-24 13:27:15 | Re: simple replication |