Thread: SQL key word list and SQL:2011
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. Thoughts?
On 19.05.2012 21:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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. We could abbreviate "reserved" and "non-reserved" to "R" and "NR" to make the columns narrower. > 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. No objections to that either. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
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.
regards, tom lane
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
On 19 May 2012 14:00, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.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