On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:38:43PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > We claim SQL standard compliance,
> No, we don't.  And SQL conformance doesn't require you to implement
> all parts anyway.

Right.  It'd be nice to be able to tell what level of conformance we
have to which parts of the standard.

> > so since those are part of SQL:2003, we probably ought to mention
> > them.  SQL/PSM is a programming language that lives inside the
> > database, and DB2 and MySQL have it.  SQL/MED lets people talk to
> > other data stores.  SQL/OLB appears to be derived from equel,
> > which we have as ecpg.  SQL/Schemata contains the information
> > schema.  SQL/JRT appears to bear some similarity to PL/Java and
> > PL/J.
> It's pretty useless to talk about stuff that we don't have yet.

I think it's useful to mention what's arriving, what's being worked
on, and what's not even being contemplated in the long term.

> The point of the XML section is that we have a number of things, and
> users are having trouble (understandably) fitting them together.

Similar troubles apply--on a smaller scale--to the information schema,

David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to