On 2/27/06, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote:
> Huh? We should ofcourse try to implement SQL:2003 wherever we can, but
> to say this means we need to throw out anything not mentioned is silly.
> For example, CREATE INDEX is not in SQL:2003, are you seriously
> suggesting we remove it?
i didn't suggest removing such things. I know that there are many
must-have things that standard misses (limit/offset for example), but
(as i wrote...) Postgres has stuff that just duplicate standard
constuctions (such as type casting with ::). It would very great if we
have ability to restrict (not remove) them somehow.
moreover, there are things that are implemented in non-standard way...
as ILIKE. I know, that work on COLLATE support is in progress (right?)
and it's very good, ILIKE is very painful thing for those who migrated
from other DBMS.
>
> We implement many extensions to SQL like user-defined operators,
> aggregates and casts as well as tablespaces. They are all useful and
> work well and don't prevent us from supporting all of SQL:2003, so why
> remove them?
Please, do not incriminate me all deadly sins :-) I know where is the
power of Postgres lies.
>
> Also, we are generally more standards compliant than MySQL so I'm not
> sure using them makes for a good argument.
Surely, MySQL is weak, but people work on it, money are being spent...
Among other things, ability to set up 'SQL mode' is one of
advertising tools which helps to fight with competitors.
--
Best regards,
Nikolay
