Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references
Date
Msg-id 42D66E5F.4050705@samurai.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references
Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references
List pgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think it would be less confusing in these cases to simply write
> "This is conforming to the SQL standard." and then mention in the
> appendix that we consider SQL:2003 to be the baseline.

How would this help? ISTM you are just suggesting we replace "conforming
to SQL:2003" with "conforming with the SQL standard", and a note in the
appendix that indicates by "SQL standard" we actually mean "SQL:2003".
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.

-Neil

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: thousands comma numeric formatting in psql
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Final cleanup of SQL:1999 references