On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 10:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

I note that nobody asked whether any research was conducted in support
of the patch, you have just assumed there was none. I'm not clear why
anybody would reach that conclusion; if there is another issue here, I'm
happy to discuss that on or off-list.

So that we are clear, I referred to the current standard guide for each
change. Any discussion on this patch should be on a point by point
basis, not just on "the whole thing is wrong" basis because we have used
the emotional phrase "search-and-replace" to refer to all of the
proposed changes.

The main point is that SQL:1999 no longer has any validity as a standard
and has been wholly superceded by SQL:2003. SQL:1999 has interest only
for historical reasons, for those who care when a particular feature was
introduced.

In some paragraphs there was discussion of historical aspects. I believe
I have included an appropriate statement for each. In most cases there
is no historical discussion on whether particular features were
standardised at particular times, so in those cases I have not sought to
include that information.

On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 10:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

If that was the convention, it is not clear in the docs. They simply look 
like they have not been properly updated to reflect the new version of the 
standard. That was my objective.

Peter's suggestion of just saying "the SQL standard" seems motivated by 
reducing the amount of rework for translators. I would support that, but 
ask that Peter make those changes and reapply.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
       match

Reply via email to