Re: SQL key word list and SQL:2011

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I'm updating the SQL key word list in the appendix. Since there is now
> SQL:2011, this should be included in the table. But we're running out
> of horizontal space. We currently have

> Key word | PostgreSQL | SQL:2008 | SQL:2003 | SQL:1999 | SQL-92

> In the PDF, we have space for about 5 columns, and currently the SQL-92
> column is already in the margin. If we add one more column, it falls
> off the page.

> What I'd suggest is that we keep only the SQL:2011 column. The
> differences from 2003 to 2011 aren't that great that it's very useful to
> analyze the differences, and 1999 and 1992 are really only of
> archeological interest. (For example, it's not going to be of any
> practical relevance to attempt to use a key word that was unreserved in
> 1999 but reserved later. A number of other vendors will have reserved
> it by now as well.) We would, however, lose a few key words that were
> reserved in earlier versions of the standard but then removed (e.g.,
> BIT). Maybe those could be added with a note or something.

Perhaps it'd be useful to keep just SQL-92 and SQL:2011, to give some
sense of how the standard's keyword set has evolved over time while
not making the table too wide.

regards, tom lane