re: SQL compliance, was Re: [HACKERS] follow-up on PC Week Labs benchmark results

From: Timothy Dyck <Timothy_Dyck(at)zd(dot)com>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: re: SQL compliance, was Re: [HACKERS] follow-up on PC Week Labs benchmark results
Date: 2000-02-16 20:11:16
Message-ID: 85256887.006F1089.00@mailer.zd.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>You had inquired earlier about "when we would support complete SQL92"
(give or take a few words). What areas of entry level SQL92 are we
missing in your opinion (or should we wait for the article)?

Well, what I look for on the language side is complete SQL-92 entry level
compliance, plus common language extensions like outer joins, cast, case,
cube, rollup, a datetime data type, add table constraint and alter table.
Also, I look for a stored procedure language. Basically, parity with the
commercial databases. :)

The key measure I'd look for with SQL compliance is passing the NIST FIPS
127 SQL92 test. NIST discontinued its testing policy, which was a bad thing
for the industry, but the test may still be available from NIST. The spec
itself still is available for free; I ordered a copy a few weeks ago.

-Tim Dyck

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Timothy Dyck 2000-02-16 20:25:15 PC Week PostgreSQL benchmark results posted online
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-02-16 18:55:14 Re: [HACKERS] Date/time types: big changeu