| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL_SIZING view |
| Date: | 2003-01-07 17:33:33 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0301071828090.8249-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway writes:
> I found the definition in FIPS 127-2:
> http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip127-2.htm
>
> The relevant section is section 16.6.
The table described there does not match the schema of the SQL_SIZING
table defined in the SQL standard. I'm also suspicious because the
SQL_FEATURES table described nearby does not match the SQL_FEATURES table
in the standard in both schema and content. So even though the concept
seems to be the same I would rather not follow the definition there.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-01-07 17:40:33 | Re: Have people taken a look at pgdiff yet? |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2003-01-07 17:27:19 | Re: IPv6 patch |