Re: SQL compliance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: SQL compliance
Date
Msg-id 38BE7F3E.D8111EA8@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL compliance  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > 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
> I dug through the standard to come up with a list [ of missing features ].
> * TIME and TIMESTAMP WITH TIMEZONE missing  [6.1]

TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE is already available (and was for v6.5.x
too). I'll add syntax to allow TIME WITH TIME ZONE for v7.0.

> * SOME / ANY doesn't seem to exist  [8.7]
> 
> * Grant privileges have several deficiencies  [10.3, 11.36]
> 
> * Schemas  [11.1, 11.2]
> 
> * CREATE VIEW name (x, y, z) doesn't work  [11.19]
> 
> * There's a WITH CHECK OPTION clause for CREATE VIEW  [11.19]
> 
> * no OPEN statement  [13.2]
> 
> * FETCH syntax has a few issues  [13.3]
> 
> * SELECT x INTO a, b, c table  [13.5]
> 
> * DELETE WHERE CURRENT OF  [13.6]
> 
> * INSERT INTO table DEFAULT VALUES  [13.8]
> {Looks like a grammar fix as well.}
> 
> * UPDATE WHERE CURRENT OF  [13.9]
> 
> * no SQLSTATE, SQLCODE  [22.1, 22.2]
> {Not sure about that one, since the sections don't contain leveling
> information.}
> 
> * default transaction isolation level is SERIALIZABLE
> {Why isn't ours?}
> 
> * no autocommit in SQL
> 
> * modules?  [12]
> 
> * Some type conversion problems. For example a DECIMAL field should not
> dump out as NUMERIC, and a FLOAT(x) field should be stored as such.
> 
> [* Haven't looked at Embedded SQL.]
> 
> That's it. :)
> 
> --
> Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
> peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
> http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden

-- 
Thomas Lockhart                lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] having and union in v7beta