On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 11:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I also don't agree with the idea that we should reject syntax that
> doesn't appear in the SQL standard. We have a great deal of such
> syntax already, and we add more of it in every release, and a good
> deal of it is contributed by you and your colleagues. I don't see
> why this patch should be held to a stricter standard than we do in
> general. I agree that there is some possibility for pain if the SQL
> standards committee adopts syntax that is similar to whatever we pick
> but different in detail, but I don't think we should be too worried
> about that unless other database systems, such as Oracle, have syntax
> that is similar to what is proposed here but different in
> detail. The
> SQL standards committee seems to like standardizing on whatever
> companies with a lot of money have already implemented; it's unlikely
> that they are going to adopt something totally different from any
> existing system but inconveniently similar to ours.
We agree with you.
Best regards,
Anton, Johann, Michael, Peter
