| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Frames vs partitions: is SQL2008 completely insane? |
| Date: | 2009-01-03 22:29:22 |
| Message-ID: | 200901040029.23507.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Saturday 27 December 2008 20:32:10 Ron Mayer wrote:
> ISTM ISO should hire you guys (or the postgres project as a whole)
> to proof-read their specs before they publish them.
The way it really works though, effectively, is that vendors hire ISO to
publish their specs.
Having a few inconsistencies in 2000 pages of language specification with 20
years of legacy around it isn't so bad IMO, considering that there are really
only a handful of guys working on this with any intensity.
If we cared enough, we could submit these sorts of issues to the committee for
clarification or correction. If anyone is convinced enough about this
particular case, I can try to relay it and see what happens.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2009-01-03 22:31:31 | Re: dblink vs SQL/MED |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-01-03 22:20:10 | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |