Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
David Fetter wrote: > I think it's useful to mention what's arriving, what's being worked > on, and what's not even being contemplated in the long term. We don't even have a roadmap of any kind, so the last thing we can do is put claims of that sort in the documentation. > Similar troubles apply

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
bear some similarity to PL/Java and PL/J. I think the big question is whether we are ever going to implement these? I think we need to decide that before I mention them. The SQL/Schemata thing is already in. I think we should at least mention which features that we already have are from what

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:38:43PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > We claim SQL standard compliance, > > No, we don't. And SQL conformance doesn't require you to implement > all parts anyway. Right. It'd be nice to be able to tell what level of conformance we have to wh

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Peter Eisentraut wrote: David Fetter wrote: We claim SQL standard compliance, No, we don't. And SQL conformance doesn't require you to implement all parts anyway. so since those are part of SQL:2003, we probably ought to mention them. SQL/PSM is a programming language that lives inside

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
David Fetter wrote: > The SQL/Schemata thing is already in. I think we should at least > mention which features that we already have are from what part of the > standard. We do. Read the documentation. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(en

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
David Fetter wrote: > We claim SQL standard compliance, No, we don't. And SQL conformance doesn't require you to implement all parts anyway. > so since those are part of > SQL:2003, we probably ought to mention them. SQL/PSM is a > programming language that lives inside the database, and DB2

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
David Fetter wrote: > > > mention which features that we already have are from what part of > > > the standard. As far as the rest of the standard goes, we might > > > want to mention whether we've even considered any of each piece in > > > the TODO list, and what sub-pieces, if any, are already >

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 01:16:06PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > David Fetter wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > Speaking of other parts of the SQ

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
David Fetter wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > David Fetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > Speaking of other parts of the SQL:2003 standard, how about one > > > > > section each that mentions them?

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:48:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Speaking of other parts of the SQL:2003 standard, how about one > > > > section each that mentions them? There's > > > > > > > > Part 4:

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > David Fetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:46:57PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Here is an new XML section for our SGML documentation. It > > > > explains the various XML capabilities, if we s

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-26 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:37:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:46:57PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Here is an new XML section for our SGML documentation. It > > > explains the various XML capabilities, if we support them, and > > > how to

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-25 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Here is an new XML section for our SGML documentation. It explains the > various XML capabilities, if we support them, and how to use them. > > Comments? > +1. Users often ask this in the mailing lists. Where are you want to put this? I'll suggest: FAQ. What do you all th

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Here is an new XML section for our SGML documentation. It explains the > > various XML capabilities, if we support them, and how to use them. > > > > Comments? > > > +1. Users often ask this in the mailing lists. Where are you want t

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:46:57PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Here is an new XML section for our SGML documentation. It explains > > the various XML capabilities, if we support them, and how to use > > them. > > > > Comments? > > This looks hauntingly similar to Peter

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation

2006-08-25 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:46:57PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Here is an new XML section for our SGML documentation. It explains > the various XML capabilities, if we support them, and how to use > them. > > Comments? This looks hauntingly similar to Peter's presentation at the conference. :)