There is little support for adding this patch without the recursive
part, so I added the URLs for this thread to the TODO list under
recursive queries.
---
Neil Conway wrote:
Attached is an updated version of Greg Stark's
Hi,
From: Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCHES] [8.4] Updated WITH clause patch (non-recursive)
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:58:40 -0800
Attached is an updated version of Greg Stark's patch to add support for
the non-recursive variant of the SQL99 WITH clause[1].
I found a bug with
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remaining work is to review the guts of the patch (which shouldn't take
long), and write documentation and regression tests. I'm personally
hoping to see this get into the tree fairly early in the 8.4 cycle,
pending discussion of course.
Looking back at
Neil Conway wrote:
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 12:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Both of the above arguments hold water only if we implement
compatible *semantics*, not merely syntax, so I find them
unconvincing at this stage.
How are the semantics of the proposed patch incompatible with the SQL
spec
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remaining work is to review the guts of the patch (which shouldn't take
long), and write documentation and regression tests. I'm personally
hoping to see this get into the tree fairly early in the 8.4 cycle,
pending discussion of course.
Note that as it
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 09:17 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
Tom's feeling at the time was that even though it was providing something from
the standard, it wasn't actually allowing the user to do anything he couldn't
before.
I think this feature has value:
(1) This is SQL-standard syntax (and not
Hello
On 27/01/2008, Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 09:17 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
Tom's feeling at the time was that even though it was providing something
from
the standard, it wasn't actually allowing the user to do anything he
couldn't
before.
I
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I still hope to do recursive queries for 8.4 so I don't have strong feelings
for this part either way.
One question that hasn't been asked is whether this patch is likely to
help, or to get in the way, for a more full-fledged implementation.
I don't
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(1) This is SQL-standard syntax (and not even wacko syntax, at that!),
and there is merit in implementing it on those grounds alone.
(2) It is supported by DB2, MS SQL and Oracle, so there is a further
compatibility argument to be made.
Both of the above
On Jan 27, 2008 8:13 PM, Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Compare that with the irritation we may well see from the removal of
implicit casts in 8.3, which will break *far* more applications, for a
benefit that many users will no doubt find rather hard to observe.)
It's a bit off-topic
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 12:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Both of the above arguments hold water only if we implement compatible
*semantics*, not merely syntax, so I find them unconvincing at this
stage.
How are the semantics of the proposed patch incompatible with the SQL
spec or the implementations
11 matches
Mail list logo
