Re: SQL compatibility reminder: MySQL vs PostgreSQL

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> I thought that some of the items on the OP's list were requests to
> add an alternative syntax for an existing feature, without a change
> in semantics. Did I misunderstand that? If not, is it something we
> want to consider?

I think the pre-existing TODO item is evidence that there's at least
willingness to consider such things. (OTOH I believe that item has
been there for quite a long time, without any action being taken.)

> I do know that some of the requests were to support behavior we
> would consider incorrect (like the non-deterministic results from an
> underspecified GROUP BY); not only do we not want to go to any
> effort to *add* it, but we'd probably be putting in effort to
> *eliminate* it if it was present. Should the TODO list "not wanted"
> section explicitly list each such feature, so that non-listed
> features aren't painted by the same broad brush?

Yes, I think we should narrowly list things we don't want to do.
The current wording reads like "we aren't interested in adopting any
MySQL ideas", which I don't think is actually the project consensus,
not to mention that it doesn't look good from a PR standpoint.

I believe we do have consensus that we aren't interested in adopting
MySQL's nonstandard GROUP BY semantics. I don't recall what else
there might be a definite "no" for.

regards, tom lane