To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SQL 2003 conformance 
In-reply-to: <1098061824.22986.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> 
References: <200410121952.24859.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<1098061824.22986.91.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Comments: In-reply-to Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
	message dated "Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:10:24 +1000"
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:06:43 -0400
Message-ID: <15957.1098065203@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 03:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Is anyone feeling masochistic and wants to review the SQL standards 
>> conformance chapter in the documentation for SQL 2003?

> Another useful improvement would be to update the "Standards
> conformance" section of the SQL command reference pages to refer to
> SQL:2003 consistently. At present they refer to a mix of SQL-92,
> SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.

I think it's a good idea to refer to the first version of the spec in
which the feature appeared.  A global search-and-replace would amount
to removing information.  (This is of course not meant to imply that
we've gotten it right everywhere, but that's what I'd like to think is
meant by referring to particular versions.)

If your intent is not to refer to any particular version then you should
just say "SQL", anyhow.

			regards, tom lane