> It would also be very minor to add "UNION -1" as a synonym for "UNION ALL", > but "being minor" is not an argument for doing so. > While the mentorship of Postgres is undoubted, there is/was never a drive, > nor a need for full (or even partial) compatibility with "Postgres" per se, > mostly care is applied to conform or be compatible with the SQL standard as > much as possible (much like PostGres' > philosophy) - At least this is how I read the Dev's statements thus far.
As I said earlier, I just noticed that, although Richard Hipp had publicly talked about Sqlite having Postgres compatibility, there is fact no common subset of SQL dialect for this feature. The Andl Sql generator can handle it, but I thought it warranted a question for confirmation. > If you can show that the SQL standard likes the "LIMIT ALL" phrasing, or > argue that it has in it's own right an advantage over "LIMIT -1", then you > would have a much better case than just saying "But Postgres does it", and > then it would make sense even if it isn't very minor. I have no deep knowledge of standard SQL. This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_%28SQL%29#FETCH_FIRST_clause is not particularly helpful but does not list this syntax. I checked a copy of the 2003 standard and there doesn't seem to be anything similar. I don't have anything later. > > All that said, personally I do like the "LIMIT ALL" for clarity and wouldn't > mind seeing it implemented. I agree, but it would be for Postgres compatibility rather than the standard, I think. Regards David M Bennett FACS Andl - A New Database Language - andl.org
