From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] SQL conformance related patch
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:34:16 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
Cc: Troels Arvin <troels@arvin.dk>, pgsql-patches@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <1101381875.3068.27.camel@localhost>
	<1101498748.2870.78.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1101498748.2870.78.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200411262334.16250.peter_e@gmx.net>

Simon Riggs wrote:
> The sections Supported Features and Unsupported Features cover both
> Mandatory (Core) and Optional features in the same section. It would
> be better to separate these, just as the SQL standard itself does in
> Annex F - SQL Feature Taxonomy.
>
> This seems especially important for the Unsupported Features section,
> since the length of the list makes it look like 100% support is a
> long way off, whereas it is only 14 features away, and many of them
> minor [see Troels' low hanging fruit list on this thread]

If the "core" set of features were at all useful in practice then I 
would think about this, but it is not, so we'd just end up arranging 
the tables for marketing purposes instead of information purposes.  Ten 
years ago this would have been equivalent to making a separate section 
for SQL 92 Entry level and rejoicing upon completion, while realizing 
that a real-life DBMS needs at least Intermediate level.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/