Re: SET TRANSACTION and SQL Standard

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> "If any condition required by Syntax Rules is not satisfied when the
> evaluation of Access or General Rules is attempted and the
> implementation is neither processing non-conforming SQL language nor
> processing conforming SQL language in a non-conforming manner, then an
> exception condition is raised: syntax error or access rule violation."

> If we *choose* to be an SQL implementation that conforms to the SQL
> standard, then it should throw an error.

That reading would forbid any nonstandard syntax whatsoever...

What this is actually describing is the "standards conformance checking"
mode that the standard says you ought to provide, but we never have
(nor have most other vendors AFAIK). In SQL92 this was described as
a "SQL Flagger" and it was optional. Not sure what the latest spec
says about that.

regards, tom lane