| 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 |
| Thread: | |
| 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 | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-10-21 19:07:31 | Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-21 16:43:09 | Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-21 17:06:05 | Re: Regression in IN( field, field, field ) performance |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-21 16:43:09 | Re: pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003 |