On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> But even leaving that aside, I'm surprised to hear so many people
> dismissing SQL standards compliance so blithely. We've certainly
> spent a lot of blood, sweat, and tears on minor standards-compliance
> issues over they years - why is it OK to not care about this
> particular issue when we've spent so much effort caring about other
> ones?
Does the SQL Standard suggest you can't extend the language with
operators? Or does it reserve certain characters for future use? And
if so, is there a list?
merlin
