On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:16:47 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Btw., does anyone mind if I change the names of the standards to > > SQL 1992 > SQL 1999 > SQL 2003 > > ? The other styles seem to be rather contrived and are not applied > consistently.
We have tried to use the official[1] short names: SQL-92 SQL:1999 SQL:2003 - But it's true that those short names are not used consistently throughout the documentation. I see no reason not to use the offical short names; to me, they look OK text-wise. But it boils down to a matter of taste. Note 1: http://books.elsevier.com/mk/default.asp?isbn=1558604561 has a section on this subject. -- Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
