Re: SQL compliance

On 2000-02-17, Thomas Lockhart mentioned:

> I've since seen the article in the latest issue of PCWeek. The article
> was not at all clear on the *specific* features which would disqualify
> Postgres from having SQL92 entry level compliance

I dug through the standard to come up with a list. I probably missed some
things, but they would be more of a lexical nature. I think I covered all
language constructs (which is what people look at anyway). Some of these
things I never used, so I merely tested them by looking at the current
documentation and/or entering a simple example query. Also, this list
doesn't care whether an implemented feature contains bugs that would
actually disqualify it from complete compliance.


* TIME and TIMESTAMP WITH TIMEZONE missing  [6.1]

* Things such as SELECT MAX(ALL x) FROM y; don't work.  [6.5]
{This seems to be an easy grammar fix.}

* LIKE with ESCAPE clause missing  [8.5]
{Is on TODO.}

* SOME / ANY doesn't seem to exist  [8.7]

* Grant privileges have several deficiencies  [10.3, 11.36]

* Schemas  [11.1, 11.2]

* CREATE VIEW name (x, y, z) doesn't work  [11.19]

* There's a WITH CHECK OPTION clause for CREATE VIEW  [11.19]

* no OPEN statement  [13.2]

* FETCH syntax has a few issues  [13.3]

* SELECT x INTO a, b, c table  [13.5]

* DELETE WHERE CURRENT OF  [13.6]

* INSERT INTO table DEFAULT VALUES  [13.8]
{Looks like a grammar fix as well.}

* UPDATE WHERE CURRENT OF  [13.9]

* no SQLSTATE, SQLCODE  [22.1, 22.2]
{Not sure about that one, since the sections don't contain leveling
information.}

* default transaction isolation level is SERIALIZABLE
{Why isn't ours?}

* no autocommit in SQL

* modules?  [12]

* Some type conversion problems. For example a DECIMAL field should not
dump out as NUMERIC, and a FLOAT(x) field should be stored as such.

[* Haven't looked at Embedded SQL.]


That's it. :)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden