Thread: features required for SQL 92 conformance
Hi all, I would like to know if anyone has documented the feature set lacking in postgresql for conformance with the SQL 92 standard and how these features can be implemented. I found information detailing the conformance with SQL 99 but not SQL 92. Thanks, Uma _________________________________________________________________ INDIA TODAY @ Rs. 5 for 5 years ! http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/intlsubscription/itsubs/it_offer.html Subcribe Now ...
Uma, > I would like to know if anyone has documented the feature set lacking in > postgresql for conformance with the SQL 92 standard and how these > features can be implemented. > I found information detailing the conformance with SQL 99 but not SQL > 92. Hmmm ... I'm not sure we're missing anything for SQL 92. Except maybe CREATE PROCEDURE. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:32:05 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > I'm not sure we're missing anything for SQL 92. I'm thinking: Updatable views. As far as I know, SQL-92 has updatable views in the sense that views deriving from only one base table should be updatable (as long as the view construction makes it possible for the DBMS to deduct where to make changes in the base table). Sure, PostgreSQL has rules, but that hardly qualifies as real support for updatable views. -- Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark
Troels, > I'm thinking: Updatable views. As far as I know, SQL-92 has updatable > views in the sense that views deriving from only one base table should be > updatable (as long as the view construction makes it possible for the DBMS > to deduct where to make changes in the base table). Sure, PostgreSQL has > rules, but that hardly qualifies as real support for updatable views. Damn, yeah, you're right. Neil was going to code something so that "WITH UPDATE" would automatically translate into the creation of 2-3 rules. But he got distracted ... -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > Damn, yeah, you're right. Neil was going to code something so that > "WITH UPDATE" would automatically translate into the creation of 2-3 > rules. But he got distracted ... Indeed, the tragedy of being unable to work on PG full time :-) But it hardly matters to the subject at hand: as I mentioned on IRC, AFAIK there is *plenty* of stuff in SQL92 we don't support. -Neil
neilc@samurai.com (Neil Conway) wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> Damn, yeah, you're right. Neil was going to code something so that >> "WITH UPDATE" would automatically translate into the creation of 2-3 >> rules. But he got distracted ... > > Indeed, the tragedy of being unable to work on PG full time :-) > > But it hardly matters to the subject at hand: as I mentioned on IRC, > AFAIK there is *plenty* of stuff in SQL92 we don't support. SQL 92 has multiple "levels," and I don't think anyone has gotten faintly close to supporting every aspect of the higher levels. - "Entry level" is rudimentary enough that systems that barely feign SQL compliance can often comply with it; - "Transitional level" and "Intermediate level" add in a pretty wide set of features, _most_ of which are things PostgreSQL supports; - "Full SQL92" has features that definitely aren't widely supported, although there certainly are some supported by PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL probably sits somewhere between Transitional and Intermediate levels, but in some ways, it's a bit irrelevant, as even if it covered all of particular levels, the NIST organization that used to be responsible for validating claims of standards conformance was disbanded back in the '90s. Claims of "conformance" are a bit specious when there isn't much of a standards body on this anymore. And vendors that consider themselves commercially important are quite prepared to ignore standards whenever it seems convenient. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com'; http://cbbrowne.com/info/advocacy.html "I withdraw my claim that rpm is proprietary -- my objections were based on the documentation for the version of rpm (2.2.6) that I used as a documentation source when writing makepkg and xrpm." -- david parsons
Chris, > Claims of "conformance" are a bit specious when there isn't much of a > standards body on this anymore. And vendors that consider themselves > commercially important are quite prepared to ignore standards whenever > it seems convenient. Yeah, why do you think they disbanded the compliance team in the first place? Just ask Joe Celko .... -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Josh Berkus wrote: > Chris, > > > Claims of "conformance" are a bit specious when there isn't much of a > > standards body on this anymore. And vendors that consider themselves > > commercially important are quite prepared to ignore standards whenever > > it seems convenient. > > Yeah, why do you think they disbanded the compliance team in the first place? > Just ask Joe Celko .... I haven't spoken with Joe in years.. why don't you tell us? -- Dan Langille - BSDCan: http://www.bsdcan.org/
Dan, > > > Claims of "conformance" are a bit specious when there isn't much of a > > > standards body on this anymore. And vendors that consider themselves > > > commercially important are quite prepared to ignore standards whenever > > > it seems convenient. > > > > Yeah, why do you think they disbanded the compliance team in the first > > place? Just ask Joe Celko .... > > I haven't spoken with Joe in years.. why don't you tell us? I thought it was self-evident from my statement. The largest vendors weren't happy with their scores on SQL compliance, and by the late 90's had come to dominate the SQL committee. So they eliminated conformance testing so that Oracle, SQL Server, etc. wouldn't look so bad. And Joe resigned the committee ... probably over that and other things. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Josh Berkus wrote: > Dan, > > > > > Claims of "conformance" are a bit specious when there isn't much of a > > > > standards body on this anymore. And vendors that consider themselves > > > > commercially important are quite prepared to ignore standards whenever > > > > it seems convenient. > > > > > > Yeah, why do you think they disbanded the compliance team in the first > > > place? Just ask Joe Celko .... > > > > I haven't spoken with Joe in years.. why don't you tell us? > > I thought it was self-evident from my statement. It wasn't. That's why I asked. :) I'm sure I wasn't the only one. > The largest vendors weren't happy with their scores on SQL > compliance, and by the late 90's had come to dominate the SQL committee. > So they eliminated conformance testing so that Oracle, SQL Server, etc. > wouldn't look so bad. Ahhh, this I did not know. > And Joe resigned the committee ... probably over that and other things. Thank you. -- Dan Langille - BSDCan: http://www.bsdcan.org/
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:13:36 -0500, Neil Conway wrote: >> Damn, yeah, you're right. Neil was going to code something so that >> "WITH UPDATE" would automatically translate into the creation of 2-3 >> rules. But he got distracted ... [...] > But it hardly matters to the subject at hand: as I mentioned on IRC, > AFAIK there is *plenty* of stuff in SQL92 we don't support. SQL-92 or not: The lack of updatable views is still an unfortunate shortcoming. -- Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark