On Monday, September 19, 2011 9:20 AM, "David Fetter" <david@fetter.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:58:49AM -0400, Joe Abbate wrote:
> > On 09/19/2011 09:50 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > FWIW, the fact that the drafts *are* confidential is symptomatic
> > > of everything which is wrong with the ISO.
> >
> > Maybe it's time for an open source SQL standard, one not controlled
> > by the "big guys" and their IP claims.
>
> That's probably not a bad idea. The down side is that it'll be the work
> of decades, not years, to get this thing going.
If anyone wants to start on something like this, I think it
could start as a rigorous review of PostgreSQL semantics.
On Monday, September 19, 2011 4:44 PM, "Greg Smith"
<greg@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> Not spending as much time sitting in meetings and fighting with other
> vendors is one of the competitive advantages PostgreSQL development has
> vs. the "big guys". There needs to be a pretty serious problem with
> your process before adding bureaucracy to it is anything but a backwards
> move. And standardization tends to attract lots of paperwork...
Perhaps focusing only on PostgreSQL semantics and edge cases is
also where the effort should stop.
I'm not offering to do this. I think this work would only be really
valuable if it significantly improved the already excellent
documentation and regression tests -- ie, provides direct user value.
Best,
Clark