Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level ?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level ?
Date: 2000-02-19 00:38:35
Message-ID: 200002190038.TAA20900@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I believe it is Interbase that does not support the -- comment.

> Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >
> > I've since seen the article in the latest issue of PCWeek. The article
> > was not at all clear on the *specific* features which would disqualify
> > Postgres from having SQL92 entry level compliance (for most commercial
> > RDBMSes this is the only level they attain), and I was amused to note
> > that although InterBase was lauded for SQL92 compliance, the author
> > did encourage them to consider supporting the SQL92 comment delimiter
> > ("--") in their next release :))
>
> Why does PostgreSQL _not_ support the -- comment delimiter ?
>
> Is there something complicated to supporting it in parser ?
>
> IMNSHO it would require only a few lines in gram.y
>
> Does supporting user-defined operators interfere ?
>
> I assume we could comfortably disallow -- as a possible operator (one
> can't input it from interactive psql anyway)
>
> --------------
> Hannu
>
> ************
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Roberto Cornacchia 2000-02-19 01:23:38 Generalized Top Queries on PostgreSQL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-02-19 00:21:50 Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level ?