On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Andrew Gierth
wrote:
> I think I got all the issues I currently know of, but there may be
> more, and others may disagree with my classification of issues or the
> rationales for violating the spec. Any feedback?
Related to, but I think distinct from
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2018-Jun-10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (wanders away wondering exactly what parsing technology the SQL committee
>> thinks implementations use...)
> Umm, doesn't this come from our decision to make the AS optional there?
No, it was THEIR decision to make AS optional. I'd
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:32:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Gierth writes:
> > I beat at the grammar a bit to see what it would take to fix it at least
> > to the extent of allowing a_expr ColId in a select list after removing
> > postfix ops. It looked like it was doable by making these
Andrew Gierth writes:
> I beat at the grammar a bit to see what it would take to fix it at least
> to the extent of allowing a_expr ColId in a select list after removing
> postfix ops. It looked like it was doable by making these keywords more
> reserved (all of which are already reserved words
Andrew Gierth writes:
> Oh wow, I hadn't noticed that dropping a function referenced from a
> domain's default or constraint drops the whole domain rather than just
> removing the default or constraint the way it would with a table.
Ouch. Seems like possibly a bug ... shouldn't we make only
> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth writes:
Andrew> I beat at the grammar a bit to see what it would take to fix it
Andrew> at least to the extent of allowing a_expr ColId in a select
Andrew> list after removing postfix ops. It looked like it was doable
Andrew> by making these keywords more
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
>> I think I got all the issues I currently know of, but there may be
>> more, and others may disagree with my classification of issues or the
>> rationales for violating the spec. Any feedback?
Tom> WRT 1.1 ... I doubt that redefining DROP DOMAIN as you
Andrew Gierth writes:
> I created this wiki page:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_vs_SQL_Standard
Good idea!
> I think I got all the issues I currently know of, but there may be
> more, and others may disagree with my classification of issues or the
> rationales for violating the
I created this wiki page:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_vs_SQL_Standard
I'd been thinking of collecting this information for a while, but was
spurred into further action when someone referred me to Markus Winand's
PGCon talk slides.
I think I got all the issues I currently know
