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@varlena.com
Show quoted text
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@postgresql.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@varlena.com
Show quoted text
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.patchThere 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.phpBut 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