From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |
Date: | 2008-07-28 19:35:26 |
Message-ID: | 87iqupredd.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
Tom> We are not in the business of getting spec-required semantics
Tom> 80% right;
I guess that's why we still fold identifiers to lowercase, why our
timestamp implementation differs from the standard, why we used to
require AS for select-list aliases, why our views aren't updateable,
why we violate the spec for UNIQUE, why we don't have schema-unique
constraint names, why we don't implement MATCH PARTIAL, ...
The SQL spec is a Platonic ideal to which _none_ of the implementations
are more than a vague approximation.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-07-28 19:42:40 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-28 19:29:26 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-07-28 20:30:13 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-28 19:15:13 | Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723 |