From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL key word list and SQL:2011 |
Date: | 2012-05-21 13:18:54 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+o=fgLJhKWdKfjmfZ5D0sVPq6OLdSiWz6kX4UmHWLUmg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 19 May 2012 14:00, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> 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.
The SQL:2011 standard replaces previous standards, so I agree: we
should only list the current version of the standard. The previous
versions of the standard are simply no longer relevant.
If people want that, we could have a little text at bottom saying
Changes between 2008 and 2011 etc.. if that really is interesting -
and if it really is then it should be listed as incompatibilities in
the release notes.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-21 16:09:25 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... CLUSTER ON synopsis |
Previous Message | Dan McGee | 2012-05-21 10:11:34 | Re: Observation on integer types documentation |