On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:42:45PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 03:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 02:42:25AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> It's not like we haven't seen a SQL draft go down in flames
> > >> before.
> >
> > > Do you think that anything in the windowing functions section
> > > will disappear?
> >
> > Who's to say?
> >
> > I have no objection to looking at the 2003 and 200n documents in
> > parallel, especially if there are places where 200n clarifies the
> > intent of 2003. But I'd be suspicious of designing around
> > entirely-new features presented by 200n.
>
> I have confirmation from Michael Gorman, Wiscorp, that
>
> > The new standard was approved in early Summer. SQL 2008 is
> > finished.
>
> So as of now, SQL2008 exists, all hail. SQL2003 and earlier versions
> have been superseded and can be ignored.
Any chance we can buy a few copies of the official one for use on the
project?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
