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, SQL/OLB, SQL/JRT, etc. Cheers, D -- 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