Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
Date: 2008-10-21 19:07:31
Message-ID: 200810212207.32433.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Tuesday 21 October 2008 19:59:02 Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +0000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
> >>
> >> Why not SQL:2008?
> >
> > Peter?
>
> If the comment was meant to refer to SQL:2003 originally, it should
> probably be left that way. I don't want to get into the game of doing a
> global search-and-replace every time a new spec comes out. If anything,
> comments referring to particular spec versions should probably make a
> habit of referring to the *oldest* version in which a given feature
> exists, not the newest.

That was the idea. I don't care much one way or another, but SQL:200N is
obviously not very clear.

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-10-21 20:42:54 pgsql: Add a concept of "placeholder" variables to the planner.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-10-21 16:59:02 Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-10-21 19:08:51 Re: So what's an "empty" array anyway?
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2008-10-21 18:39:19 Re: So what's an "empty" array anyway?