Neil Conway wrote: > No, it isn't -- PL/PgSQL is not defined by the SQL standard. I guess > you're referring to SQL/PSM, but that has only a passing resemblance > to PL/PgSQL. Implementing SQL/PSM in some form would definitely be > worth doing (especially now that MySQL have), but I haven't seen any > plans to do that by adapting PL/PgSQL to SQL/PSM.
I don't claim to recall the details, but we have frequently referred to the SQL standard when resolving issues about PL/pgSQL's syntax. > In any case, there are plenty of cases in which we accept a superset > of the syntax defined by the SQL standard -- DROP TABLE { RESTRICT | > CASCADE }, for example. We have never interpreted compliance with the > SQL specification to mean that we must *only* accept the standard's > syntax and nothing else. The cases were we accept a superset of the SQL standard are either additional features, backward compatibility, or compatibility to other systems -- none of which seem to apply here. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq