Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2011 features
I assume you guys know where to go to get the complete sql:2011 spec: http://www.iso.org/iso/search.htm?qt=9075searchSubmit=Searchsort=reltype=simplepublished=true But if time/money is an issue the following seems to be the best publicly available description of the temporal features: http://metadata-standards.org/Document-library/Documents-by-number/WG2-N1501-N1550/WG2_N1536_koa046-Temporal-features-in-SQL-standard.pdf If/as you all make progress with this we would love to hear about it in the Temporal Data group on LinkedIn, where we are discussing temporal data in general and the SQL:2011 extensions in particular. http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=gid=3885228 We have had some excellent input from Jeff Davis in the past. Craig -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/SQL-2011-features-tp5114317p5116875.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] SQL:2011 features
Are there any features in SQL:2011 that we should be considering for 9.2? We seem quite close on temporal stuff, so maybe just a little syntax work? Not sure and not planning anything myself, just checking. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2011 features
On mån, 2012-01-02 at 09:33 +, Simon Riggs wrote: Are there any features in SQL:2011 that we should be considering for 9.2? We seem quite close on temporal stuff, so maybe just a little syntax work? I am aware of this piece on what's new in SQL:2011: http://petereisentraut.blogspot.com/2010/04/news-from-sql-standard.html Based on that: * ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET/DROP NOT NULL: done since PG 7.3 * Constraints set to NO ENFORCE: Apparently no current interest; more interest in the NOT VALID track at the moment. * System-versioned tables: Hmm, just a little syntax work? Not sure how much interest there is. * Combined data change and retrieval: We decided against supporting the standard syntax for this. * Named arguments in function calls: done since PG 9.0; and we're phasing out the = operator. * Default values for function arguments: done since PG 9.0 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2011 features
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On mån, 2012-01-02 at 09:33 +, Simon Riggs wrote: Are there any features in SQL:2011 that we should be considering for 9.2? We seem quite close on temporal stuff, so maybe just a little syntax work? I am aware of this piece on what's new in SQL:2011: http://petereisentraut.blogspot.com/2010/04/news-from-sql-standard.html I saw this as well, which seems quite different: http://metadata-standards.org/Document-library/Documents-by-number/WG2-N1501-N1550/WG2_N1536_koa046-Temporal-features-in-SQL-standard.pdf -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2011 features
Hello 2012/1/2 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net: On mån, 2012-01-02 at 09:33 +, Simon Riggs wrote: Are there any features in SQL:2011 that we should be considering for 9.2? trim_array can be simply implemented for one dim array. I am not sure about semantic for multidim arrays. Regards Pavel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] SQL:2011 features
On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: * Named arguments in function calls: done since PG 9.0; and we're phasing out the = operator. We don’t support `=` for params yet, right? Still just `:=`? David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
