That's all I needed to hear (and Tom's comment). Thanks.
I am sure you understand I need something concrete to tell the submitter
when I reject it. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Nasser wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:> This is a pretty sizable patch, and there was discussion
> about it.
>
> On which there were objections that were not addressed. I, for instance,
> complained about the addition of a syntax that is neither SQL not Oracle. And
> the last version of the patch still has it.
>
> Also, I felt that there was a consensus that we should implement the SQL99 (and
> DB2) recursive queries instead because:
> 1) It is the _standard_
> 2) The Oracle clause is less generic (less powerful) than the standard
> 3) One can add the Oracle weird clause as a syntactic sugar to a specific
> recursive query construct (as I have shown in one posting)
> 4) Adding the Oracle clause as a hack may prevent us to implement the real SQL thing
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Fernando Nasser
> Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
> 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
> Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
>
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073