X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BD33A4A4C for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:50:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44410-04 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:49:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0778B3A49FA for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:49:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CTnnS-0005ri-00 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:49:58 +0100 Received: from 62.79.119.132.adsl.vbr.tiscali.dk ([62.79.119.132]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:49:57 +0100 Received: from troels by 62.79.119.132.adsl.vbr.tiscali.dk with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:49:57 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org From: Troels Arvin Subject: Re: ANSI SQL-2003 conformance Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:49:54 +0100 Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <1100474436.2950.2656.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20041114192930.D22405@cookie.varlena.com> <200411151735.52702.peter_e@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.79.119.132.adsl.vbr.tiscali.dk User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/43 X-Sequence-Number: 2678 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. -- Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark