Re: relation model vs SQL1999 conformance vs PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-general

From
Subject Re: relation model vs SQL1999 conformance vs PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 004a01c32f50$336c98b0$1401010a@Xeon
Whole thread Raw
In response to relation model vs SQL1999 conformance vs PostgreSQL  (<alvis@piladzi-2.biz>)
List pgsql-general
hello me,
Since I am able to search archives (plus reading your docs), I have found
answers to almost all of my questions.
albeit attempt to invoke spirits failed.
Looks like I rised too much general questions, indecent for
pgsql-general@postgresql.org list  ;-).

anyway Postgres documentation is great!

Regards,
Alvis
----- Original Message -----
From: <alvis@piladzi-2.biz>
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 6:06 AM
Subject: relation model vs SQL1999 conformance vs PostgreSQL


> hello all,
>
> In general my question to all PostgreSQL community is stated in the
subject
> line.
> Looks like I am missing something 'cause I am new to this list, but I
don't
> see much info
> on this subject in your web page.
> Perhaps the only information I have found is in v.7.4 dev. documents about
> SQL1999 conformace.
> How much from SQL1999 are you going to implement?
> (I mean in the long run, say any plans for next 3 years, kind of TODO
> lists?)
> As far as I see there are features (i.e. kind of array support) in
> PostgreSQL that are implemented looong before SQL99.
> Do you feel you have to conform to SQL99 for marketing considerations? or
> else?
> I don't know nothing about any conformance tests for SQL99, kind of
strange?
>
> In particular I am interested how do you feel about REF type (or using
> pointers) to join tables.
> Any pointers to additional information on the subject will be highly
> appreciated.
> Hope it is right list for these questions.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alvis Tunkelis
>


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: jr@amanue.com (Jim Rosenberg)
Date:
Subject: The transaction that "happens" with function invocation
Next
From: "Nigel J. Andrews"
Date:
Subject: Re: The transaction that "happens" with function invocation