From: | Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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: | 2003-02-19 18:55:26 |
Message-ID: | 1045680926.19508.242.camel@inspiron.cramers |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ok, if a patch were submitted to the parser to allow the syntax in
question would it be considered?
Dave
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 12:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
> > Referring to
> > http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/dbperl/refinfo/sql3/sql3bnf.sep93.txt
> > the following grammar exists
> > is the reference above valid?
>
> Sep 93? That would be an extremely early draft of what eventually became
> SQL99. Looks like the parens got lost again by the time of the final
> spec.
>
> Given that there's no visible functionality gain from allowing parens
> here, I'm not surprised that the spec authors decided it wasn't such
> a hot idea after all... too bad Informix didn't get the word :-(
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--
Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cramer Consulting
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-19 19:12:53 | Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-02-19 17:50:42 | Re: Questions about indexes? |