Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003

pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003

From
petere@postgresql.org (Peter Eisentraut)
Date:
Log Message:
-----------
SQL 200N -> SQL:2003

Modified Files:
--------------
    pgsql/src/backend/parser:
        gram.y (r2.625 -> r2.626)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/parser/gram.y?r1=2.625&r2=2.626)

Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003

From
Simon Riggs
Date:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +0000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
>

Why not SQL:2008?

If it's not in latest version, it has been superceded and we should
consider removing it.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003

From
Simon Riggs
Date:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +0000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > -----------
> > SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
> >
>
> Why not SQL:2008?

Peter?

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +0000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
>>
>> Why not SQL:2008?

> Peter?

If the comment was meant to refer to SQL:2003 originally, it should
probably be left that way.  I don't want to get into the game of doing a
global search-and-replace every time a new spec comes out.  If anything,
comments referring to particular spec versions should probably make a
habit of referring to the *oldest* version in which a given feature
exists, not the newest.

            regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003

From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008 19:59:02 Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +0000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
> >>
> >> Why not SQL:2008?
> >
> > Peter?
>
> If the comment was meant to refer to SQL:2003 originally, it should
> probably be left that way.  I don't want to get into the game of doing a
> global search-and-replace every time a new spec comes out.  If anything,
> comments referring to particular spec versions should probably make a
> habit of referring to the *oldest* version in which a given feature
> exists, not the newest.

That was the idea.  I don't care much one way or another, but SQL:200N is
obviously not very clear.