On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 06:26:02PM +0300, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> 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@svana.org> 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.
