Re: SQL compliance

> > 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
> I dug through the standard to come up with a list [ of missing features ].
> * TIME and TIMESTAMP WITH TIMEZONE missing [6.1]

TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE is already available (and was for v6.5.x
too). I'll add syntax to allow TIME WITH TIME ZONE for v7.0.

> * SOME / ANY doesn't seem to exist [8.7]
>
> * Grant privileges have several deficiencies [10.3, 11.36]
>
> * Schemas [11.1, 11.2]
>
> * CREATE VIEW name (x, y, z) doesn't work [11.19]
>
> * There's a WITH CHECK OPTION clause for CREATE VIEW [11.19]
>
> * no OPEN statement [13.2]
>
> * FETCH syntax has a few issues [13.3]
>
> * SELECT x INTO a, b, c table [13.5]
>
> * DELETE WHERE CURRENT OF [13.6]
>
> * INSERT INTO table DEFAULT VALUES [13.8]
> {Looks like a grammar fix as well.}
>
> * UPDATE WHERE CURRENT OF [13.9]
>
> * no SQLSTATE, SQLCODE [22.1, 22.2]
> {Not sure about that one, since the sections don't contain leveling
> information.}
>
> * default transaction isolation level is SERIALIZABLE
> {Why isn't ours?}
>
> * no autocommit in SQL
>
> * modules? [12]
>
> * Some type conversion problems. For example a DECIMAL field should not
> dump out as NUMERIC, and a FLOAT(x) field should be stored as such.
>
> [* Haven't looked at Embedded SQL.]
>
> That's it. :)
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
> peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
> http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden

--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California