| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: polymorphic table functions light |
| Date: | 2019-12-20 00:30:00 |
| Message-ID: | ff8610d7-b08b-2bba-57bf-155e94c28234@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16/12/2019 22:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> That being the case, I'm not in favor of using up SQL syntax space for it
> if we don't have to.
Do I understand correctly that you are advocating *against* using
standard SQL syntax for a feature that is defined by the SQL Standard
and that we have no similar implementation for?
If so, I would like to stand up to it. We are known as (at least one
of) the most conforming implementations and I hope we will continue to
be so. I would rather we remove from rather than add to this page:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_vs_SQL_Standard
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2019-12-20 00:41:21 | RE: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-12-20 00:26:22 | Re: [HACKERS] kqueue |