X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3123329FAF for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:30:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70553-01 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:30:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from builder.troels.arvin.dk (rh6builder.fsr.ku.dk [130.225.215.196]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1A1329F4B for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:30:44 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by builder.troels.arvin.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC575C02F for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:30:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from builder.troels.arvin.dk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (builder.troels.arvin.dk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 11811-10-2 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:30:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (62.79.119.132.adsl.vbr.tiscali.dk [62.79.119.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by builder.troels.arvin.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id D270DC044 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:30:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Some developer FAQ links need updating From: Troels Arvin To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <200410142119.i9ELJDu00457@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200410142119.i9ELJDu00457@candle.pha.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:30:41 +0200 Message-Id: <1097789441.4044.9.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.0 (2.0.0-2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at arvin.dk X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200410/30 X-Sequence-Number: 2599 Hello Bruce, On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 17:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have updated it to: > > 1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards? > [...] Great. > There are two major standards, SQL92 and SQL99. Shouldn't that be SQL-92 and SQL:2003, by the way? (SQL:2003 was ratified early 2004.) -- Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark