Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> We claim SQL standard compliance,
>
> No, we don't. And SQL conformance doesn't require you to implement all
> parts anyway.
>
>> so since those are part of
>> SQL:2003, we probably ought to mention them. SQL/PSM is a
>> programming language that lives inside the database, and DB2 and
>> MySQL have it. SQL/MED lets people talk to other data stores.
>> SQL/OLB appears to be derived from equel, which we have as ecpg.
>> SQL/Schemata contains the information schema. SQL/JRT appears to
>> bear some similarity to PL/Java and PL/J.
>
> It's pretty useless to talk about stuff that we don't have yet. The
> point of the XML section is that we have a number of things, and users
> are having trouble (understandably) fitting them together.
As separate sections I agree with Peter. However it would be a good idea
to have a section that talks about Potential and/or Upcoming technologies.
All of the above could be covered under that.
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
