Обсуждение: 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 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 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.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. 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