Re: PG 7.2b4 bug?

From: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG 7.2b4 bug?
Date: 2001-12-17 22:02:08
Message-ID: 3C1E6B60.7080307@pacifier.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
>
>>Most language standards - at least the ones I've worked
>>on - require compliant implementations to define and document
>>implementation-defined behavior ...
>>
>
> SQL99 saith:
>
> g) implementation-defined: Possibly differing between SQL-
> implementations, but specified by the implementor for each
> particular SQL-implementation.
>
> h) implementation-dependent: Possibly differing between SQL-
> implementations, but not specified by ISO/IEC 9075, and not
> required to be specified by the implementor for any particular
> SQL-implementations.
>
> Behavior of nondeterministic functions falls in the second category ...

Yep, those are the definitions I'm used to. OK, then, since this is
implementation-dependent, not implementation-defined, PG's off the hook
entirely!

--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-12-17 22:02:40 Re: [PATCHES] system catalog relation of a table and a
Previous Message Philip Warner 2001-12-17 22:01:25 Re: Potential bug in pg_dump ...