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
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 14:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
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)
Simon Riggs wrote:
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.
Applied, thanks.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list
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
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
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.
How would this help? ISTM you are just suggesting we replace conforming
to SQL:2003
Am Donnerstag, 14. Juli 2005 15:53 schrieb Neil Conway:
How would this help? ISTM you are just suggesting we replace conforming
to SQL:2003 with conforming with the SQL standard, and a note in the
appendix that indicates by SQL standard we actually mean SQL:2003.
I recall that most mentions of
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
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,
Simon Riggs wrote:
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and has been wholly superceded by SQL:2003.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.
Right; I guess the question is whether we
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.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
Index: array.sgml
===
RCS file:
10 matches
Mail list logo
