Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: SQL 200N - SQL:2003
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +, Peter Eisentraut wrote: SQL 200N - SQL:2003 Why not SQL:2008? Peter? If the comment was meant to refer to SQL:2003 originally, it should probably be left that way. I don't want to get into the game of doing a global search-and-replace every time a new spec comes out. If anything, comments referring to particular spec versions should probably make a habit of referring to the *oldest* version in which a given feature exists, not the newest. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: SQL 200N - SQL:2003
On Tuesday 21 October 2008 19:59:02 Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +, Peter Eisentraut wrote: SQL 200N - SQL:2003 Why not SQL:2008? Peter? If the comment was meant to refer to SQL:2003 originally, it should probably be left that way. I don't want to get into the game of doing a global search-and-replace every time a new spec comes out. If anything, comments referring to particular spec versions should probably make a habit of referring to the *oldest* version in which a given feature exists, not the newest. That was the idea. I don't care much one way or another, but SQL:200N is obviously not very clear. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
