Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.

No, you have *removed* the information.  The convention we were
effectively following was that a reference to "SQL-xxxx" rather than
just "SQL" implies that xxxx was the first version to say that.

I agree with Peter that a search-and-replace patch is entirely
off the mark.  Please revert it and do some research instead.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to