On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 11:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > "If any condition required by Syntax Rules is not satisfied when the > > evaluation of Access or General Rules is attempted and the > > implementation is neither processing non-conforming SQL language nor > > processing conforming SQL language in a non-conforming manner, then an > > exception condition is raised: syntax error or access rule violation." > > > If we *choose* to be an SQL implementation that conforms to the SQL > > standard, then it should throw an error. > > That reading would forbid any nonstandard syntax whatsoever...
No, it does allow you to choose on a case by case basis. But yes, I had thought our (not just my) default position was to conform to the standard. > What this is actually describing is the "standards conformance checking" > mode that the standard says you ought to provide, but we never have > (nor have most other vendors AFAIK). In SQL92 this was described as > a "SQL Flagger" and it was optional. Not sure what the latest spec > says about that. I've been thinking about that as something for next release. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
