| From: | Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Are we losing momentum? |
| Date: | 2003-04-24 22:46:44 |
| Message-ID: | bxyr87rldij.fsf@datafix.CS.Berkeley.EDU |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
Tom> Of course, IBM can afford to keep reps on the SQL standards
Tom> committee to make sure that no future spec extension
Tom> conflicts with the names they've used for their additions to
Tom> INFORMATION_SCHEMA. We, on the other hand, could easily get
Tom> burnt by spec changes.
Right it's pretty unfair. I'm not beating any drums here. It's more
than just making sure that no extensions conflict with what they've
used. It's also about makign their extensions the default.
One thing that they _do_ try though is to use very ibm-centric when
possible.
--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-04-24 23:14:02 | Re: Are we losing momentum? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-24 22:28:27 | Re: Are we losing momentum? |