Subject: Re: ANSI SQL-2003 conformance
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Troels Arvin <troels@arvin.dk>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <pan.2004.11.15.20.49.54.264793@arvin.dk>
References: <1100474436.2950.2656.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20041114192930.D22405@cookie.varlena.com>
	<200411151735.52702.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<pan.2004.11.15.20.49.54.264793@arvin.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: 2nd Quadrant
Message-Id: <1100570736.4113.857.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:05:36 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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