Re: ANSI SQL-2003 conformance

IIRC there was some discussion earlier about including a (possibly
detailed) assessment of ANSI SQL-2003 conformance in the docs for 8.0.

My understanding was that there were people actually working on that.

Where are we with that? Anybody got news?

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

Troels and I are working on this. We have a bit started.
I have been a bit to swamped to add anything for the last
two or three weeks. I suspect Troels is in the same position.

We have the documents and a sketchy work plan. There is a
lot of stuff here, obviously. Wanna help?

--elein
elein(at)varlena(dot)com

On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 11:20:37PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> IIRC there was some discussion earlier about including a (possibly
> detailed) assessment of ANSI SQL-2003 conformance in the docs for 8.0.
>
> My understanding was that there were people actually working on that.
>
> Where are we with that? Anybody got news?
>
> --
> Best Regards, Simon Riggs
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 03:29, elein wrote:
> Troels and I are working on this. We have a bit started.
> I have been a bit to swamped to add anything for the last
> two or three weeks. I suspect Troels is in the same position.
>
> We have the documents and a sketchy work plan. There is a
> lot of stuff here, obviously. Wanna help?

Given how close we are to 8.0, we should just do a summary for the
release notes at least. I'll help with that... but not with the Full
Monty. :)

> On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 11:20:37PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > IIRC there was some discussion earlier about including a (possibly
> > detailed) assessment of ANSI SQL-2003 conformance in the docs for 8.0.

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

elein wrote:
> Troels and I are working on this. We have a bit started.
> I have been a bit to swamped to add anything for the last
> two or three weeks. I suspect Troels is in the same position.

I think you should just submit incremental patches for the relevant
files. That way others can continue the work. No one expects a full
conformance analysis on the spot. But if you wait much longer, the
release will be out and for the next one we'll have 97 new features to
work in.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

I agree with Peter. Simon you can contact me to see the
work in progress (such as it is) and feel free to
submit immediate doc patches.

--elein
elein(at)varlena(dot)com

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 05:35:52PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> elein wrote:
> > Troels and I are working on this. We have a bit started.
> > I have been a bit to swamped to add anything for the last
> > two or three weeks. I suspect Troels is in the same position.
>
> I think you should just submit incremental patches for the relevant
> files. That way others can continue the work. No one expects a full
> conformance analysis on the spot. But if you wait much longer, the
> release will be out and for the next one we'll have 97 new features to
> work in.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
>

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:35:52 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> I think you should just submit incremental patches for the relevant
> files.

My best shot is still
http://troels.arvin.dk/db/pgsql/conformance/pgsql-sql-conformance.patch

There are a number of features which are currently set to conformance=no
but which might actually be implemented. That list hasn't changed from
this post: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2004-10/msg00050.php

> But if you wait much longer
[...]

I agree that it's getting late. I'm behind on every project that I'm
involved in, and will probably not time to work more on this :-(

Simon/Elein: Do you plan to put more work into this?

If noone has the time to look over those
probably-not-conforming-but-just-maybe features, I suggest that we just go
along with the above patch.

--
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark

On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 20:49, Troels Arvin wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:35:52 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > I think you should just submit incremental patches for the relevant
> > files.
>
> My best shot is still
> http://troels.arvin.dk/db/pgsql/conformance/pgsql-sql-conformance.patch
>
> There are a number of features which are currently set to conformance=no
> but which might actually be implemented. That list hasn't changed from
> this post: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2004-10/msg00050.php
>
> > But if you wait much longer
> [...]
>
> I agree that it's getting late. I'm behind on every project that I'm
> involved in, and will probably not time to work more on this :-(
>
> Simon/Elein: Do you plan to put more work into this?
>
> If noone has the time to look over those
> probably-not-conforming-but-just-maybe features, I suggest that we just go
> along with the above patch.

I've re-written the starting paragraphs, will post soon.

That doesnt conflict with your patch - which look like good detail.

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:05:36 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:

>> My best shot is still
>> http://troels.arvin.dk/db/pgsql/conformance/pgsql-sql-conformance.patch

> I've re-written the starting paragraphs, will post soon.

Did you post them, in that case: where?

--
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark