Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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