Re: [DOCS] SQL key word list and SQL:2011
Peter Eisentraut writes: > I'm updating the SQL key word list in the appendix. Since there is now > SQL:2011, this should be included in the table. But we're running out > of horizontal space. We currently have > Key word | PostgreSQL | SQL:2008 | SQL:2003 | SQL:1999 | SQL-92 > In the PDF, we have space for about 5 columns, and currently the SQL-92 > column is already in the margin. If we add one more column, it falls > off the page. > What I'd suggest is that we keep only the SQL:2011 column. The > differences from 2003 to 2011 aren't that great that it's very useful to > analyze the differences, and 1999 and 1992 are really only of > archeological interest. (For example, it's not going to be of any > practical relevance to attempt to use a key word that was unreserved in > 1999 but reserved later. A number of other vendors will have reserved > it by now as well.) We would, however, lose a few key words that were > reserved in earlier versions of the standard but then removed (e.g., > BIT). Maybe those could be added with a note or something. Perhaps it'd be useful to keep just SQL-92 and SQL:2011, to give some sense of how the standard's keyword set has evolved over time while not making the table too wide. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Re: [DOCS] SQL key word list and SQL:2011
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:25:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > I'm updating the SQL key word list in the appendix. Since there > > is now SQL:2011, this should be included in the table. But we're > > running out of horizontal space. We currently have > > > Key word | PostgreSQL | SQL:2008 | SQL:2003 | SQL:1999 | SQL-92 > > > In the PDF, we have space for about 5 columns, and currently the > > SQL-92 column is already in the margin. If we add one more > > column, it falls off the page. > > > What I'd suggest is that we keep only the SQL:2011 column. The > > differences from 2003 to 2011 aren't that great that it's very > > useful to analyze the differences, and 1999 and 1992 are really > > only of archeological interest. (For example, it's not going to > > be of any practical relevance to attempt to use a key word that > > was unreserved in 1999 but reserved later. A number of other > > vendors will have reserved it by now as well.) We would, however, > > lose a few key words that were reserved in earlier versions of the > > standard but then removed (e.g., BIT). Maybe those could be added > > with a note or something. > > Perhaps it'd be useful to keep just SQL-92 and SQL:2011, to give > some sense of how the standard's keyword set has evolved over time > while not making the table too wide. +1 :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [email protected] iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
[DOCS] ALTER TABLE ... CLUSTER ON synopsis
Hi all, The reference page for ALTER TABLE[1] correctly has the synopsis: CLUSTER ON index_name but later leaves off the "ON" keyword: CLUSTER I think the latter description should match the former, especially since 'ON' is mandatory; small patch attached. Josh [1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sql-altertable.html alter_table_cluster_on.diff Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
