On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:38:43PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > We claim SQL standard compliance,
>
> No, we don't. And SQL conformance doesn't require you to implement
> all parts anyway.
Right. It'd be nice to be able to tell what level of conformance we
have to which parts of the standard.
> > so since those are part of SQL:2003, we probably ought to mention
> > them. SQL/PSM is a programming language that lives inside the
> > database, and DB2 and MySQL have it. SQL/MED lets people talk to
> > other data stores. SQL/OLB appears to be derived from equel,
> > which we have as ecpg. SQL/Schemata contains the information
> > schema. SQL/JRT appears to bear some similarity to PL/Java and
> > PL/J.
>
> It's pretty useless to talk about stuff that we don't have yet.
I think it's useful to mention what's arriving, what's being worked
on, and what's not even being contemplated in the long term.
> The point of the XML section is that we have a number of things, and
> users are having trouble (understandably) fitting them together.
Similar troubles apply--on a smaller scale--to the information schema,
SQL/OLB, SQL/JRT, etc.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!