On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 06:26:02PM +0300, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote: > On 2/27/06, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Such a thing has been discussed from time to time but in reality you wouldn't > > get useful results from it because just about any application will violate > > the standard somewhere. > > > so, maybe it's better to forget about SQL:2003 at all? > please, remember that many people use Postgres for educational > purposes. Aren't you afraid of that in the future these people will > switch to MySQL because of ability to work in standard way?.. Huh? We should ofcourse try to implement SQL:2003 wherever we can, but to say this means we need to throw out anything not mentioned is silly. For example, CREATE INDEX is not in SQL:2003, are you seriously suggesting we remove it? We implement many extensions to SQL like user-defined operators, aggregates and casts as well as tablespaces. They are all useful and work well and don't prevent us from supporting all of SQL:2003, so why remove them? Also, we are generally more standards compliant than MySQL so I'm not sure using them makes for a good argument. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
