On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:01:57AM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
> [...] It is a perfectly valid approach when used with an SQL92 compliant
> database. We just have to live without it until postgresql improves
> on this point. This is certainly not a show stopper for most of us
> unless perhaps when somebody has to port a ton of code from another
> database :-(
I'm going to jump in here, because this is a particular axe I grind:
I've bent my brain around the SQL92 standards docs, and there's _no_
requirement for this type of behavior on error. Yes, it's a useful thing
to have, and yes, all the bigname commercial RDBMS's work that way, but that
doesn't mean postgres isn't SQL92 compliant on that point (it misses on
other points, though). So, go ahead and complain, I agree it's a pain for
those porting code. But don't say it's a standards issue, until you can
point to chapter and verse to defend your position.
Ross (touchy about SQL92 standards compliance, for some reason)
--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005