Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command

From: Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command
Date: 2003-02-19 18:55:26
Message-ID: 1045680926.19508.242.camel@inspiron.cramers
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ok, if a patch were submitted to the parser to allow the syntax in
question would it be considered?

Dave
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 12:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
> > Referring to
> > http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/dbperl/refinfo/sql3/sql3bnf.sep93.txt
> > the following grammar exists
> > is the reference above valid?
>
> Sep 93? That would be an extremely early draft of what eventually became
> SQL99. Looks like the parens got lost again by the time of the final
> spec.
>
> Given that there's no visible functionality gain from allowing parens
> here, I'm not surprised that the spec authors decided it wasn't such
> a hot idea after all... too bad Informix didn't get the word :-(
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--
Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cramer Consulting

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-02-19 19:12:53 Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-02-19 17:50:42 Re: Questions about indexes?