On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But as soon as the rubber hits the road, not two C or C++ compilersOn Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Timothy Madden <terminatorul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just like when I write C++ applications I use standards-conforming C++, when
> I write SQL
> applications I would like to use standard-conforming SQL.
are really 100% compatible as are no two SQL implementations.
A large part of the reason for this is that parts of the SQL spec are
> For SQL, at the current conformance and compatibility level among DBMS
> providers in use
> today, one could rightly say there is no such thing as conforming or
> portable SQL application
> in real-world.
just plain strange and weird and implementing them gains us little or
nothing. The SQL spec is far more open to interpretation than the C
or C++ specs, and has changed a LOT more in the last ten years than
those as well. It's a moving target in many ways, and while many
parts of it make perfect sense to be implemented as written, a
noticeable minority of it doesn't warrant implementation / changes to
comply.
I am only talking about conforming syntax for features PostgreSql already has.
That could gain something, right ?
And there are C/C++ applications that compile on many systems, like
Postgres is, despite the fact that no two C++ compilers are 100% compatible.
Thank you,
Timothy Madden
