Simon Riggs wrote:
> If you are saying "we should not support the SQL standard with regard
> to the new reserved words added in SQL:2003", I would understand, but
> not agree.
Conformance to the SQL standard is defined such that statements that are
specified in the standard should work precisely
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
... Therefore, adding more reserved key
words than necessary does not achieve anything in terms of SQL
conformance.
One might argue that it will prevent current PostgreSQL users from
unintentionally using those keywords and thereby obtain 2 goals:
1. The SQL code will b
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> One might argue that it will prevent current PostgreSQL users from
> unintentionally using those keywords and thereby obtain 2 goals:
>
> 1. The SQL code will be more portable since other databases may
> recognize the keywords.
> 2. Migration to a future PostgreSQL version
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 10:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If you are saying "we should not support the SQL standard with regard
> > to the new reserved words added in SQL:2003", I would understand, but
> > not agree.
>
> Conformance to the SQL standard is defined such that stat
Hi,
Attached is a patch to up to date the brazilian FAQ. I included some
typo fixes too.
Please apply.
PS> Do not consider the last patch I sent to correct the typos, they
are included in this patch.
=
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
euler[at]yahoo_com_br
___
