From: | <alvis(at)piladzi-2(dot)biz> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: relation model vs SQL1999 conformance vs PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2003-06-10 12:59:57 |
Message-ID: | 004a01c32f50$336c98b0$1401010a@Xeon |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
hello me,
Since I am able to search archives (plus reading your docs), I have found
answers to almost all of my questions.
albeit attempt to invoke spirits failed.
Looks like I rised too much general questions, indecent for
pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org list ;-).
anyway Postgres documentation is great!
Regards,
Alvis
----- Original Message -----
From: <alvis(at)piladzi-2(dot)biz>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 6:06 AM
Subject: relation model vs SQL1999 conformance vs PostgreSQL
> hello all,
>
> In general my question to all PostgreSQL community is stated in the
subject
> line.
> Looks like I am missing something 'cause I am new to this list, but I
don't
> see much info
> on this subject in your web page.
> Perhaps the only information I have found is in v.7.4 dev. documents about
> SQL1999 conformace.
> How much from SQL1999 are you going to implement?
> (I mean in the long run, say any plans for next 3 years, kind of TODO
> lists?)
> As far as I see there are features (i.e. kind of array support) in
> PostgreSQL that are implemented looong before SQL99.
> Do you feel you have to conform to SQL99 for marketing considerations? or
> else?
> I don't know nothing about any conformance tests for SQL99, kind of
strange?
>
> In particular I am interested how do you feel about REF type (or using
> pointers) to join tables.
> Any pointers to additional information on the subject will be highly
> appreciated.
> Hope it is right list for these questions.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alvis Tunkelis
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Rosenberg | 2003-06-10 13:03:14 | The transaction that "happens" with function invocation |
Previous Message | Ned Lilly | 2003-06-10 12:46:54 | Re: [GENERAL] MySQL gets $19.5 MM |