Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
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 17:29:12
Message-ID: 12348.1045675752@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2003-02-19 17:47:10 Re: Bytea misconceptions
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2003-02-19 16:58:38 Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command