| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, Rene Pijlman <rpijlman(at)wanadoo(dot)nl>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: JDBC 2.0 conformance, documentation and todo list |
| Date: | 2001-08-09 16:18:34 |
| Message-ID: | 27261.997373914@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Barry Lind writes:
>> supportsANSI92EntryLevelSQL - Since postgres now does support outer
>> joins, I think the answer here should be yes. I think the general
>> feeling is that if there is a deviation from entry level SQL92 it is a bug.
> Outer joins are not required for entry level SQL. Nevertheless,
> PostgreSQL does not and probably will never comply with entry level SQL to
> the letter, so the answer "false" is correct.
I think the biggest remaining shortcoming compared to "entry SQL92" is
lack of schema support. I haven't groveled through the spec in detail
to see what else is missing, however. (Once we have schemas, we can
try to run the NIST compliance tests and see what they complain of...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Barry Lind | 2001-08-09 16:39:00 | Re: deleting large objects from jdbc |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-08-09 15:51:32 | Re: Re: JDBC 2.0 conformance, documentation and todo list |