Re: [HACKERS] SQL flagger

2003-01-15 Thread Fernando Nasser
THe SQL Flagger is only required for Intermediate SQL. SQL'92 23.4 says Entry SQL may, but are not required to. This said, it is a nice to have feature for the reasons that Peter pointed out. But as I understand it, this is a sort of warning feature, and depending on the extent of checking

Re: [HACKERS] SQL flagger

2003-01-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Fernando Nasser writes: THe SQL Flagger is only required for Intermediate SQL. SQL'92 23.4 says Entry SQL may, but are not required to. SQL 92 is obsolete. In SQL 99 and later it's a core feature. If I understood it correctly, we only need a new elog level and add a few elog calls in some

[HACKERS] SQL flagger

2003-01-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
The SQL standard requires conforming implementations to provide an SQL flagger facility that, in its simplest form (which is the only required one), points out when SQL syntax features that are not in the core SQL feature set are used. (No catalog lookup is required.) In other words, it prints a

Re: [HACKERS] SQL flagger

2003-01-12 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The SQL standard requires conforming implementations to provide an SQL flagger facility ... I think we could implement this with relatively little intrusion if we create an interface routine, say SQLFlagger(), which takes the entire parsetree as its