| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: When is a record NULL? |
| Date: | 2009-07-26 21:57:26 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0907261457s434c6deekecb08096f1decf1a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Kevin
Grittner<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Also, the
> requirement that, to be considered a relational database, it must be
> impossible to write two queries which can be shown to be logically
> equivalent but which optimize to different access plans to be, well, a
> bit "ivory tower."
Personally I think that's a fine goal to aim for. I'm not sure what
"to be considered a relational database" means but I consider a bug
whenever there's a case where this isn't true. It may be a bug that we
don't have a good solution for or a bug that's too minor for the
amount of effort it would require but it's still not right and if we
found a solution that we were happy with we would definitely want to
fix it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sam Mason | 2009-07-26 22:24:14 | Re: When is a record NULL? |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-07-26 21:30:25 | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |