Some time ago, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2005 18:01 schrieb Simon Riggs:
>> This doc patch replaces all inappropriate references to SQL:1999 when it
>> is used as if it were the latest (and/or still valid) SQL standard.
>> SQL:2003 is used in its place.

> I don't necessarily consider this search and replace to be appropriate.  All 
> information for users looking for SQL:1999 compliance information is now 
> lost.

Also, there are places where it completely destroyed the meaning, as in
(the "Namespace Available to GROUP BY and ORDER BY" subsection), where
the intended distinction between SQL-92 and later versions of the spec
has been obliterated, and the text is now actually self-contradictory.

> Also, phrases like "This is conforming to SQL:2003." give the wrong 
> impression that it is not conforming to SQL:1999.  I think it would be less 
> confusing in these cases to simply write "This is conforming to the SQL 
> standard." and then mention in the appendix that we consider SQL:2003 to be 
> the baseline.

I agree: we should just say SQL except where there is an intention to
distinguish different versions of the spec, and in that case mention
the earliest spec version for which the particular statement is true.
This convention will not require any future search-and-replaces.

Barring some fairly convincing objections, I am going to undo most of
this patch later this week, and instead do it as Peter suggests.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to