Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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 14:12:38
Message-ID: 18391.1121350358@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

No, you have *removed* the information. The convention we were
effectively following was that a reference to "SQL-xxxx" rather than
just "SQL" implies that xxxx was the first version to say that.

I agree with Peter that a search-and-replace patch is entirely
off the mark. Please revert it and do some research instead.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-14 14:52:56 Autovacuum loose ends
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2005-07-14 14:07:32 Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references