Neil Conway wrote:
> No, it isn't -- PL/PgSQL is not defined by the SQL standard. I guess
> you're referring to SQL/PSM, but that has only a passing resemblance
> to PL/PgSQL. Implementing SQL/PSM in some form would definitely be
> worth doing (especially now that MySQL have), but I haven't seen any
> plans to do that by adapting PL/PgSQL to SQL/PSM.
I don't claim to recall the details, but we have frequently referred to
the SQL standard when resolving issues about PL/pgSQL's syntax.
> In any case, there are plenty of cases in which we accept a superset
> of the syntax defined by the SQL standard -- DROP TABLE { RESTRICT |
> CASCADE }, for example. We have never interpreted compliance with the
> SQL specification to mean that we must *only* accept the standard's
> syntax and nothing else.
The cases were we accept a superset of the SQL standard are either
additional features, backward compatibility, or compatibility to other
systems -- none of which seem to apply here.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
