On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:20 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:58:49AM -0400, Joe Abbate wrote: >> On 09/19/2011 09:50 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> > FWIW, the fact that the drafts *are* confidential is symptomatic >> > of everything which is wrong with the ISO. >> >> Maybe it's time for an open source SQL standard, one not controlled >> by the "big guys" and their IP claims. > > That's probably not a bad idea. The down side is that it'll be the work > of decades, not years, to get this thing going.
Actually, I think it *is* a bad idea, as it would require construction from whole cloth of kinds of mostly political infrastructure that we don't have, as a community and aren't necessarily notably competent to construct. The nearest sort of thing that *could* conceivably be sensible would be to participate in UnQL <http://www.unqlspec.org/display/UnQL/Home>. That's early enough in its process that it's likely somewhat guidable, and, with the popularity of NoSQL, being at the "ground breaking" of a common query language to access that would likely be useful to us. If we wanted to start a new standards process, I imagine it would best involve embracing "truly relational," stepping back to PostQUEL, and promoting a standard based on something off more in that direction. As much as that might sound like a terrible idea, trying to "take over" SQL by forking it strikes me as a much *worse* idea. -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
