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:

- 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

Reply via email to