On 19 May 2012 14:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
The SQL:2011 stand
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 |
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
On 19.05.2012 21:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
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
