| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Troels Arvin <troels(at)arvin(dot)dk> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL:2003 keyword additions |
| Date: | 2004-11-24 21:00:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1101330055.4179.25.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 10:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If you are saying "we should not support the SQL standard with regard
> > to the new reserved words added in SQL:2003", I would understand, but
> > not agree.
>
> Conformance to the SQL standard is defined such that statements that are
> specified in the standard should work precisely as specified in the
> standard. It does *not* mean that statements that are not defined in
> the standard should fail to work. Therefore, adding more reserved key
> words than necessary does not achieve anything in terms of SQL
> conformance.
Returning to your original thought, the PostgreSQL reserved word list
and the standard are not the same thing. I accept the core team's
judgement that the two should not be the same, for various reasons.
I have another suggestion on how to allow both to co-exist, which I will
detail later on Hackers.
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2004-11-25 04:53:44 | pt_BR FAQ updated |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-11-24 14:40:08 | Re: SQL:2003 keyword additions |