On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Timothy Madden <terminato...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Just like when I write C++ applications I use standards-conforming C++, > when > > I write SQL > > applications I would like to use standard-conforming SQL. > > But as soon as the rubber hits the road, not two C or C++ compilers > are really 100% compatible as are no two SQL implementations. > > > For SQL, at the current conformance and compatibility level among DBMS > > providers in use > > today, one could rightly say there is no such thing as conforming or > > portable SQL application > > in real-world. > > A large part of the reason for this is that parts of the SQL spec are > just plain strange and weird and implementing them gains us little or > nothing. The SQL spec is far more open to interpretation than the C > or C++ specs, and has changed a LOT more in the last ten years than > those as well. It's a moving target in many ways, and while many > parts of it make perfect sense to be implemented as written, a > noticeable minority of it doesn't warrant implementation / changes to > comply. > > I am only talking about conforming syntax for features PostgreSql already has. That could gain something, right ? And there are C/C++ applications that compile on many systems, like Postgres is, despite the fact that no two C++ compilers are 100% compatible. Thank you, Timothy Madden
