| From: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command |
| Date: | 2003-02-20 02:08:56 |
| Message-ID: | 3E5438B8.6060405@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
>
>>Ok, if a patch were submitted to the parser to allow the syntax in
>>question would it be considered?
>
>
> I would vote against it ... but that's only one vote.
As a thought, will it add significant maintenance penalties or be
detrimental?
There seem to be quite a lot of Informix people moving to PostgreSQL
these days, moreso than Oracle shops. Might have been brought on by
IBM's purchase of Informix.
Wondering if this one change be a significant improvement in regards to
making it easier to migrate, or just a minor thing?
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
> regards, tom lane
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-20 02:09:45 | Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-02-20 02:01:24 | Re: Detecting corrupted pages earlier |