From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003 |
Date: | 2008-10-21 19:07:31 |
Message-ID: | 200810212207.32433.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 21 October 2008 19:59:02 Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +0000, 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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-21 20:42:54 | pgsql: Add a concept of "placeholder" variables to the planner. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-21 16:59:02 | Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-21 19:08:51 | Re: So what's an "empty" array anyway? |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-10-21 18:39:19 | Re: So what's an "empty" array anyway? |