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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
