On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:25:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.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.
+1 :)
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
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
