I'm a small PostgreSQL contributor since 2010 myself. I probably can't write the whole patch myself, but if there is enough interest, and if we can work out the details and address the problems raised in this thread and elsewhere, I'm pretty confident we can do it. If we ever get there, the next step would be a reference implementation, probably in PostgreSQL, or to discuss a proposal in the SQL committee.
I'm often interested into what goes into changes to committee-driven standards.
To an outsider, proposing a change seems to require one to be part of a shady cabal of Big-5 employees, skilled in the art of hiding subtle, privacy-invading features into inscrutable, plain-text RFCs.
That or subjecting yourself to 30K+ what-abouters who deform your suggestion into something unrecognisable.
It's refreshing to see a straightforward, well-formatted proposal (even if I do slightly prefer the `FROM table1 x JOIN table2 y ON x.fk` syntax suggested in other comments).
> To an outsider, proposing a change seems to require one to be part of a shady cabal of Big-5 employees, skilled in the art of hiding subtle, privacy-invading features into inscrutable, plain-text RFCs.
I thought so too. Initially I just tried to get in contact with someone at the Swedish Institute for Standards (SIS), to see if it would be possible to send a proposal to someone in the SQL committee, which I thought was nearly impossible to become a member of. But as it turns out, SIS explained I could actually join the Swedish working group, and participate directly there, I just had to send in an application and get the approval from my employer, since there is a cost involved and you have to be a member via a company. Turns out ISO is a very open and democratic organization, just like Hacker News! :)
I think this proposal could take years until it land, if it ever does, in some form, if concerns can be addressed, but SQL is here to stay for a while, so that doesn't scare me.
I was following this proposal on the -hackers thread, glad to see it getting traction here. I find it really interesting to read that, it'll be even more interesting to see how it plays out longer term. I'd love to see some more progress made with the SQL language / syntax, and having someone in the community actively engaging with the committees seems like a great way forward.
> It's refreshing to see a straightforward, well-formatted proposal (even if I do slightly prefer the `FROM table1 x JOIN table2 y ON x.fk` syntax suggested in other comments).
