Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level ?
Date
Msg-id 38ADD786.97A98EF4@tm.ee
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL compliance, was Re: [HACKERS] follow-up on PC Week Labsbenchmark results  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level ?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> 
> I've since seen the article in the latest issue of PCWeek. The article
> was not at all clear on the *specific* features which would disqualify
> Postgres from having SQL92 entry level compliance (for most commercial
> RDBMSes this is the only level they attain), and I was amused to note
> that although InterBase was lauded for SQL92 compliance, the author
> did encourage them to consider supporting the SQL92 comment delimiter
> ("--") in their next release :))

Why does PostgreSQL _not_ support the -- comment delimiter ?

Is there something complicated to supporting it in parser ?

IMNSHO it would require only a few lines in gram.y

Does supporting user-defined operators interfere ?

I assume we could comfortably disallow -- as a possible operator (one 
can't input it from interactive psql anyway)

--------------
Hannu


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marc Tardif
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] queries on 2+ indices
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] queries on 2+ indices