Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references
Date: 2005-07-14 13:53:35
Message-ID: 42D66E5F.4050705@samurai.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think it would be less confusing in these cases to simply write
> "This is conforming to the SQL standard." and then mention in the
> appendix that we consider SQL:2003 to be the baseline.

How would this help? ISTM you are just suggesting we replace "conforming 
to SQL:2003" with "conforming with the SQL standard", and a note in the 
appendix that indicates by "SQL standard" we actually mean "SQL:2003". 
If people are really concerned about whether a given feature conforms to 
SQL-92, SQL:1999, or SQL:2003, all we have done is provided them with 
the same information in a slightly different form.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2005-07-14 14:07:32
Subject: Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-14 13:30:36
Subject: Re: thousands comma numeric formatting in psql

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group