On Monday, September 19, 2011 9:20 AM, "David Fetter" <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:58:49AM -0400, Joe Abbate wrote: > > On 09/19/2011 09:50 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > FWIW, the fact that the drafts *are* confidential is symptomatic > > > of everything which is wrong with the ISO. > > > > Maybe it's time for an open source SQL standard, one not controlled > > by the "big guys" and their IP claims. > > That's probably not a bad idea. The down side is that it'll be the work > of decades, not years, to get this thing going.
If anyone wants to start on something like this, I think it could start as a rigorous review of PostgreSQL semantics. On Monday, September 19, 2011 4:44 PM, "Greg Smith" <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Not spending as much time sitting in meetings and fighting with other > vendors is one of the competitive advantages PostgreSQL development has > vs. the "big guys". There needs to be a pretty serious problem with > your process before adding bureaucracy to it is anything but a backwards > move. And standardization tends to attract lots of paperwork... Perhaps focusing only on PostgreSQL semantics and edge cases is also where the effort should stop. I'm not offering to do this. I think this work would only be really valuable if it significantly improved the already excellent documentation and regression tests -- ie, provides direct user value. Best, Clark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
