On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Scott Marlowe
<scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Timothy Madden <
terminatorul@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just like when I write C++ applications I use standards-conforming C++, when
> I write SQL
> applications I would like to use standard-conforming SQL.
are really 100% compatible as are no two SQL implementations.
> For SQL, at the current conformance and compatibility level among DBMS
> providers in use
> today, one could rightly say there is no such thing as conforming or
> portable SQL application
> in real-world.
A large part of the reason for this is that parts of the SQL spec are
just plain strange and weird and implementing them gains us little or
nothing. The SQL spec is far more open to interpretation than the C
or C++ specs, and has changed a LOT more in the last ten years than
those as well. It's a moving target in many ways, and while many
parts of it make perfect sense to be implemented as written, a
noticeable minority of it doesn't warrant implementation / changes to
comply.
I am only talking about conforming syntax for features PostgreSql already has.
That could gain something, right ?
And there are C/C++ applications that compile on many systems, like
Postgres is, despite the fact that no two C++ compilers are 100% compatible.
Thank you,
Timothy Madden
