Re: features required for SQL 92 conformance

Josh Berkus <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Damn, yeah, you're right.  Neil was going to code something so that
> "WITH UPDATE" would automatically translate into the creation of 2-3
> rules.  But he got distracted ...

Indeed, the tragedy of being unable to work on PG full time :-)

But it hardly matters to the subject at hand: as I mentioned on IRC,
AFAIK there is *plenty* of stuff in SQL92 we don't support.

-Neil



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster