On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 11:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I also don't agree with the idea that we should reject syntax that > doesn't appear in the SQL standard. We have a great deal of such > syntax already, and we add more of it in every release, and a good > deal of it is contributed by you and your colleagues. I don't see > why this patch should be held to a stricter standard than we do in > general. I agree that there is some possibility for pain if the SQL > standards committee adopts syntax that is similar to whatever we pick > but different in detail, but I don't think we should be too worried > about that unless other database systems, such as Oracle, have syntax > that is similar to what is proposed here but different in > detail. The > SQL standards committee seems to like standardizing on whatever > companies with a lot of money have already implemented; it's unlikely > that they are going to adopt something totally different from any > existing system but inconveniently similar to ours.
We agree with you. Best regards, Anton, Johann, Michael, Peter
