Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-21 Thread Josh Berkus
Troels, > I believe that PostgreSQL 8 doesn't implement SQL:2003's IDENTITY columns, You're correct. Mind you, IDENTITY was a mistake, and I'm happy we don't implement it. > Sequences are allmost implemented, except PostgreSQL doesn't have the NEXT > VALUE FOR (uses nextval()). As NEXT VALUE

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Troels Arvin wrote: > An obvious question is how strict to be: Very strict. SQL is a standard, not a guideline. If you can't type in what it says, then it's not supported. We make occasional exceptions in extreme cases. For example, we claim to support aliases in the select list (E051-05), b

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-20 Thread Troels Arvin
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:06:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I basically needed >> data to compare SQL:2003 with PostgreSQL's current >> INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SQL_FEATURES view; hence, I created >> http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/sql-standard/2003/sql:2003-features.sql > > Yes, about 45% of the jo

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-19 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Troels Arvin wrote: > Yes, see INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SQL_FEATURES. However, with SQL:2003, > sql_features.txt isn't up-to-date any more, so I basically needed > data to compare SQL:2003 with PostgreSQL's current > INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SQL_FEATURES view; hence, I created > http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-19 Thread Troels Arvin
On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 13:47 -0700, elein wrote: > > We already have all that set up. All you need to do is edit the > > files src/backend/catalog/sql_features.txt and > > sql_feature_packages.txt. > Are these files loaded into the catalog somewhere? > Perhaps for the info_schema? Yes, see INFO

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-19 Thread elein
Are these files loaded into the catalog somewhere? Perhaps for the info_schema? --elein On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 04:12:36PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Troels Arvin wrote: > > Part of the work was to store the SQL standard's feature IDs, etc, in > > a usable manner. A result of that is avail

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Troels Arvin wrote: > Part of the work was to store the SQL standard's feature IDs, etc, in > a usable manner. A result of that is available at > http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/sql-standard/2003/sql:2003-features.s >ql The SQL creates some tables and views that may be used to explore > differences

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-18 Thread Troels Arvin
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:52:24 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Is anyone feeling masochistic and wants to review the SQL standards > conformance chapter in the documentation for SQL 2003? Elein and I am working on it. Part of the work was to store the SQL standard's feature IDs, etc, in a usable

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-17 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 03:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Is anyone feeling masochistic and wants to review the SQL standards >> conformance chapter in the documentation for SQL 2003? > Another useful improvement would be to update the "Standards > conforma

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-17 Thread Neil Conway
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 03:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Is anyone feeling masochistic and wants to review the SQL standards > conformance chapter in the documentation for SQL 2003? Another useful improvement would be to update the "Standards conformance" section of the SQL command reference pages

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-14 Thread elein
What I've got is how the new SQL2003 features work with Postgres (or not). This is based on the paper that Alvaro suggested later in this thread. The information is helpful in reviewing postgres' conformance list. Anyway, Troels, ping me on IRC. --elein On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 09:14:13AM +0

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 07:52:24PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I think an overview of how the structure of SQL 2003 differs from SQL > 1999 would also help the group to analyse the individual feature groups > more quickly. Some guys from the SQL committee put up a paper on this: http://ww

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-14 Thread Troels Arvin
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:52:24 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Is anyone feeling masochistic and wants to review the SQL standards > conformance chapter in the documentation for SQL 2003? That means a revision of src/backend/catalog/sql_features.txt ? > I know that > several features were added

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
elein wrote: > I have a couple of the new features written up, but nothing > like an entire review. If someone can tackle this job > and wants help, I'll help (but I cannot sign up for the > whole thing). Or if someone wants the material > on the items I have done, just email me. I was not askin

Re: [DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-13 Thread elein
I have a couple of the new features written up, but nothing like an entire review. If someone can tackle this job and wants help, I'll help (but I cannot sign up for the whole thing). Or if someone wants the material on the items I have done, just email me. --elein [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Oct

[DOCS] SQL 2003 conformance

2004-10-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Is anyone feeling masochistic and wants to review the SQL standards conformance chapter in the documentation for SQL 2003? I know that several features were added or revised for SQL 2003 conformance, so it would be nice to have that documented for the 8.0 release. I think an overview of how th