Re: BUG #4465: GROUP BY is not to SQL standard

Tony Marston wrote:
> I think your definition of "Feature T301 Functional Dependencies" is
> extremely questionable. A functional dependency in relational theory
> automatically exists where a non-key column on a table is functionally
> dependent on the key of that table. It is not something that can be turned
> on or off with code, it is built into the design of the table, so it is
> erroneous to say that "Postgresql does not support functional dependencies".
> If you support both key and non-key columns on a table then you support
> functional dependencies whether you like it or not.
> 
> As for your statement that PostgreSQL has never claimed that it is fully
> SQL-compliant, every time I have posted a message to a PG newsgroup and
> compared it with MySQL the immediate response which I receive has always
> been along the lines of "don't compare PG with MySQL as that is a toy
> database that does not follow the standards". As soon as I point out an SQL
> standard that you DON'T follow I get a barrage of weasel words and pathetic
> excuses.

The issue is that Postgres is _more_ standards-compliant than MySQL, but
Postgres is not 100% compliant either.  Is any database system 100%
compliant?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +