| Lists: | pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | petere(at)postgresql(dot)org (Peter Eisentraut) |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003 |
| Date: | 2008-10-20 14:26:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20081020142628.F32207545A4@cvs.postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Log Message:
-----------
SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/src/backend/parser:
gram.y (r2.625 -> r2.626)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/parser/gram.y?r1=2.625&r2=2.626)
| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <petere(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003 |
| Date: | 2008-10-20 15:18:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1224515900.3808.730.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +0000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
>
Why not SQL:2008?
If it's not in latest version, it has been superceded and we should
consider removing it.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <petere(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003 |
| Date: | 2008-10-21 16:43:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1224607389.27145.120.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +0000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > -----------
> > SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
> >
>
> Why not SQL:2008?
Peter?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <petere(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003 |
| Date: | 2008-10-21 16:59:02 |
| Message-ID: | 27350.1224608342@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| 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 |
| 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.