Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
David Fetter wrote: > 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. We don't even have a roadmap of any kind, so the last thing we can do is put claims of that sort in the documentation. > Similar troubles apply--on a smaller scale--to the information > schema, SQL/OLB, SQL/JRT, etc. The information schema is quite extensively documentated. If you have something to add on OLB and JRT, then let's hear your suggestions. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
bear some similarity to PL/Java and PL/J. I think the big question is whether we are ever going to implement these? I think we need to decide that before I mention them. The SQL/Schemata thing is already in. I think we should at least mention which features that we already have are from what part of the standard. I also see PSM and OLB as a target. Joshua D. Drake As far as the rest of the standard goes, we might want to mention whether we've even considered any of each piece in the TODO list, and what sub-pieces, if any, are already included/scheduled/too silly to contemplate :) Cheers, D -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
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 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
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. 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. The point of the XML section is that we have a number of things, and users are having trouble (understandably) fitting them together. As separate sections I agree with Peter. However it would be a good idea to have a section that talks about Potential and/or Upcoming technologies. All of the above could be covered under that. Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
David Fetter wrote: > The SQL/Schemata thing is already in. I think we should at least > mention which features that we already have are from what part of the > standard. We do. Read the documentation. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
David Fetter wrote: > We claim SQL standard compliance, No, we don't. And SQL conformance doesn't require you to implement all parts anyway. > 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. The point of the XML section is that we have a number of things, and users are having trouble (understandably) fitting them together. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
David Fetter wrote: > > > mention which features that we already have are from what part of > > > the standard. As far as the rest of the standard goes, we might > > > want to mention whether we've even considered any of each piece in > > > the TODO list, and what sub-pieces, if any, are already > > > included/scheduled/too silly to contemplate :) > > > > Well, this seems like something that belongs in our chapter on how > > we support the SQL standard. > > I'm not too fussy about where it first goes in. Just *that* it goes > in somewhere. I'll be happy to start the needed patches. :) OK, I think the SGML docs are the proper place. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 01:16:06PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > David Fetter wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > Speaking of other parts of the SQL:2003 standard, how about one > > > > > > section each that mentions them? There's > > > > > > > > > > > > Part 4: SQL/PSM (Persistent Stored Modules) > > > > > > Part 9: SQL/MED (Management of External Data) (my favorite) > > > > > > Part 10: SQL/OLB (Object Language Binding) > > > > > > Part 11: SQL/Schemata > > > > > > Part 13: SQL/JRT (Java Routines and Types) > > > > > > > > > > I don't know anything about them. > > > > > > > > We claim SQL standard compliance, 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. > > > > > > I think the big question is whether we are ever going to implement > > > these? I think we need to decide that before I mention them. > > > > The SQL/Schemata thing is already in. I think we should at least > > Uh, what is the SQL/Schemata? Are you sure it is in CVS? It contains the information schema, among other things. We've had the information schema for awhile. :) > > mention which features that we already have are from what part of > > the standard. As far as the rest of the standard goes, we might > > want to mention whether we've even considered any of each piece in > > the TODO list, and what sub-pieces, if any, are already > > included/scheduled/too silly to contemplate :) > > Well, this seems like something that belongs in our chapter on how > we support the SQL standard. I'm not too fussy about where it first goes in. Just *that* it goes in somewhere. I'll be happy to start the needed patches. :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
David Fetter wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > David Fetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > Speaking of other parts of the SQL:2003 standard, how about one > > > > > section each that mentions them? There's > > > > > > > > > > Part 4: SQL/PSM (Persistent Stored Modules) > > > > > Part 9: SQL/MED (Management of External Data) (my favorite) > > > > > Part 10: SQL/OLB (Object Language Binding) > > > > > Part 11: SQL/Schemata > > > > > Part 13: SQL/JRT (Java Routines and Types) > > > > > > > > I don't know anything about them. > > > > > > We claim SQL standard compliance, 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. > > > > I think the big question is whether we are ever going to implement > > these? I think we need to decide that before I mention them. > > The SQL/Schemata thing is already in. I think we should at least Uh, what is the SQL/Schemata? Are you sure it is in CVS? > mention which features that we already have are from what part of the > standard. As far as the rest of the standard goes, we might want to > mention whether we've even considered any of each piece in the TODO > list, and what sub-pieces, if any, are already included/scheduled/too > silly to contemplate :) Well, this seems like something that belongs in our chapter on how we support the SQL standard. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Speaking of other parts of the SQL:2003 standard, how about one > > > > section each that mentions them? There's > > > > > > > > Part 4: SQL/PSM (Persistent Stored Modules) > > > > Part 9: SQL/MED (Management of External Data) (my favorite) > > > > Part 10: SQL/OLB (Object Language Binding) > > > > Part 11: SQL/Schemata > > > > Part 13: SQL/JRT (Java Routines and Types) > > > > > > I don't know anything about them. > > > > We claim SQL standard compliance, 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. > > I think the big question is whether we are ever going to implement > these? I think we need to decide that before I mention them. The SQL/Schemata thing is already in. I think we should at least mention which features that we already have are from what part of the standard. As far as the rest of the standard goes, we might want to mention whether we've even considered any of each piece in the TODO list, and what sub-pieces, if any, are already included/scheduled/too silly to contemplate :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > David Fetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:46:57PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Here is an new XML section for our SGML documentation. It > > > > explains the various XML capabilities, if we support them, and > > > > how to use them. > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > This looks hauntingly similar to Peter's presentation at the > > > > I used the XML/SQL and validation part from his talk, but the rest > > was from earlier email discussions. > > Reuse is good :) > > > > conference. :) I'd add a http://wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html to the > > > > This seems to be the best URL, but it seems too detailed: > > > > > > http://wiscorp.com/H2-2005-197-SC32N1293-WG3_Presentation_for_SC32_20050418.pdf > > I'd just put the http://wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html URL in, as it > contains several references in varying levels of detail. OK, added. > > > reference section. > > > > > > Speaking of other parts of the SQL:2003 standard, how about one > > > section each that mentions them? There's > > > > > > Part 4: SQL/PSM (Persistent Stored Modules) > > > Part 9: SQL/MED (Management of External Data) (my favorite) > > > Part 10: SQL/OLB (Object Language Binding) > > > Part 11: SQL/Schemata > > > Part 13: SQL/JRT (Java Routines and Types) > > > > I don't know anything about them. > > We claim SQL standard compliance, 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. I think the big question is whether we are ever going to implement these? I think we need to decide that before I mention them. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:46:57PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Here is an new XML section for our SGML documentation. It > > > explains the various XML capabilities, if we support them, and > > > how to use them. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > This looks hauntingly similar to Peter's presentation at the > > I used the XML/SQL and validation part from his talk, but the rest > was from earlier email discussions. Reuse is good :) > > conference. :) I'd add a http://wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html to the > > This seems to be the best URL, but it seems too detailed: > > > http://wiscorp.com/H2-2005-197-SC32N1293-WG3_Presentation_for_SC32_20050418.pdf I'd just put the http://wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html URL in, as it contains several references in varying levels of detail. > > reference section. > > > > Speaking of other parts of the SQL:2003 standard, how about one > > section each that mentions them? There's > > > > Part 4: SQL/PSM (Persistent Stored Modules) > > Part 9: SQL/MED (Management of External Data) (my favorite) > > Part 10: SQL/OLB (Object Language Binding) > > Part 11: SQL/Schemata > > Part 13: SQL/JRT (Java Routines and Types) > > I don't know anything about them. We claim SQL standard compliance, 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. Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation
David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:46:57PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Here is an new XML section for our SGML documentation. It explains > > the various XML capabilities, if we support them, and how to use > > them. > > > > Comments? > > This looks hauntingly similar to Peter's presentation at the I used the XML/SQL and validation part from his talk, but the rest was from earlier email discussions. > conference. :) I'd add a http://wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html to the This seems to be the best URL, but it seems too detailed: http://wiscorp.com/H2-2005-197-SC32N1293-WG3_Presentation_for_SC32_20050418.pdf > reference section. > > Speaking of other parts of the SQL:2003 standard, how about one > section each that mentions them? There's > > Part 4: SQL/PSM (Persistent Stored Modules) > Part 9: SQL/MED (Management of External Data) (my favorite) > Part 10: SQL/OLB (Object Language Binding) > Part 11: SQL/Schemata > Part 13: SQL/JRT (Java Routines and Types) I don't know anything about them. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
