From: | Peter Moser <pitiz29a(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types |
Date: | 2018-01-26 06:58:04 |
Message-ID: | CAHO0eLbP=_XfRHNsUJ_6OB5fckEJgc21VLFyhm2jw6v85gAgTw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 11:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I also don't agree with the idea that we should reject syntax that
> doesn't appear in the SQL standard. We have a great deal of such
> syntax already, and we add more of it in every release, and a good
> deal of it is contributed by you and your colleagues. I don't see
> why this patch should be held to a stricter standard than we do in
> general. I agree that there is some possibility for pain if the SQL
> standards committee adopts syntax that is similar to whatever we pick
> but different in detail, but I don't think we should be too worried
> about that unless other database systems, such as Oracle, have syntax
> that is similar to what is proposed here but different in
> detail. The
> SQL standards committee seems to like standardizing on whatever
> companies with a lot of money have already implemented; it's unlikely
> that they are going to adopt something totally different from any
> existing system but inconveniently similar to ours.
We agree with you.
Best regards,
Anton, Johann, Michael, Peter
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-01-26 07:06:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
Previous Message | Peter Moser | 2018-01-26 06:57:25 | Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types |