| |||||||||||||
PostgreSQL and the SQL standards processPostgreSQL and the SQL standards processPosted Sep 21, 2011 17:18 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)Parent article: PostgreSQL and the SQL standards process
The LIMIT thing is a simple example why this kind of tactics doesn't buy anybody anything.
Implementing the alternate syntax from the standard is a simple matter of adding to the YACC file and recompiling. Total effort spent: one hour, maybe two if you add a test case for it. So the only reason why MS and Oracle do that kind of thing is that they still don't understand how Open Source works. Good for us, I'd say. :-P
(Log in to post comments)
PostgreSQL and the SQL standards process Posted Sep 22, 2011 6:12 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
I didn't get that part either.
If you've got a database that already efficiently support
select * from [foo] limit 100 offset 100
Then surely making changes to the syntax-tree so that it instead (or additionally) supports:
select * from [foo] make a effing slice from 100 to 200
That's a horrible example, because *renaming* identical functionality is just about the simplest change anyone could possibly make.
PostgreSQL and the SQL standards process Posted Sep 23, 2011 12:30 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]
One other thing to remember is that often the representatives to this standards bodies are entirely non-technical. They are professional standards body attendees, and they don't really understand the material they're looking at. They have zero concept of how easy or hard or literally impossible something is to actually implement. So you get silly stuff like this.
|
|||||||||||||