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