pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedSQL key word list and SQL:2011
5+ messages / 5 participants
[nested] [flat]
* SQL key word list and SQL:2011
@ 2012-05-19 18:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
0 siblings, 3 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2012-05-19 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
I'm updating the SQL key word list in the appendix. Since there is now
SQL:2011, this should be included in the table. But we're running out
of horizontal space. We currently have
Key word | PostgreSQL | SQL:2008 | SQL:2003 | SQL:1999 | SQL-92
In the PDF, we have space for about 5 columns, and currently the SQL-92
column is already in the margin. If we add one more column, it falls
off the page.
What I'd suggest is that we keep only the SQL:2011 column. The
differences from 2003 to 2011 aren't that great that it's very useful to
analyze the differences, and 1999 and 1992 are really only of
archeological interest. (For example, it's not going to be of any
practical relevance to attempt to use a key word that was unreserved in
1999 but reserved later. A number of other vendors will have reserved
it by now as well.) We would, however, lose a few key words that were
reserved in earlier versions of the standard but then removed (e.g.,
BIT). Maybe those could be added with a note or something.
Thoughts?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL key word list and SQL:2011
@ 2012-05-19 18:31 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
parent: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Heikki Linnakangas @ 2012-05-19 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On 19.05.2012 21:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm updating the SQL key word list in the appendix. Since there is now
> SQL:2011, this should be included in the table. But we're running out
> of horizontal space. We currently have
>
> Key word | PostgreSQL | SQL:2008 | SQL:2003 | SQL:1999 | SQL-92
>
> In the PDF, we have space for about 5 columns, and currently the SQL-92
> column is already in the margin. If we add one more column, it falls
> off the page.
We could abbreviate "reserved" and "non-reserved" to "R" and "NR" to
make the columns narrower.
> What I'd suggest is that we keep only the SQL:2011 column. The
> differences from 2003 to 2011 aren't that great that it's very useful to
> analyze the differences, and 1999 and 1992 are really only of
> archeological interest. (For example, it's not going to be of any
> practical relevance to attempt to use a key word that was unreserved in
> 1999 but reserved later. A number of other vendors will have reserved
> it by now as well.) We would, however, lose a few key words that were
> reserved in earlier versions of the standard but then removed (e.g.,
> BIT). Maybe those could be added with a note or something.
No objections to that either.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL key word list and SQL:2011
@ 2012-05-20 15:25 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2012-05-20 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I'm updating the SQL key word list in the appendix. Since there is now
> SQL:2011, this should be included in the table. But we're running out
> of horizontal space. We currently have
> Key word | PostgreSQL | SQL:2008 | SQL:2003 | SQL:1999 | SQL-92
> In the PDF, we have space for about 5 columns, and currently the SQL-92
> column is already in the margin. If we add one more column, it falls
> off the page.
> What I'd suggest is that we keep only the SQL:2011 column. The
> differences from 2003 to 2011 aren't that great that it's very useful to
> analyze the differences, and 1999 and 1992 are really only of
> archeological interest. (For example, it's not going to be of any
> practical relevance to attempt to use a key word that was unreserved in
> 1999 but reserved later. A number of other vendors will have reserved
> it by now as well.) We would, however, lose a few key words that were
> reserved in earlier versions of the standard but then removed (e.g.,
> BIT). Maybe those could be added with a note or something.
Perhaps it'd be useful to keep just SQL-92 and SQL:2011, to give some
sense of how the standard's keyword set has evolved over time while
not making the table too wide.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL key word list and SQL:2011
@ 2012-05-20 19:28 David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Fetter @ 2012-05-20 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; pgsql-docs
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:25:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > I'm updating the SQL key word list in the appendix. Since there
> > is now SQL:2011, this should be included in the table. But we're
> > running out of horizontal space. We currently have
>
> > Key word | PostgreSQL | SQL:2008 | SQL:2003 | SQL:1999 | SQL-92
>
> > In the PDF, we have space for about 5 columns, and currently the
> > SQL-92 column is already in the margin. If we add one more
> > column, it falls off the page.
>
> > What I'd suggest is that we keep only the SQL:2011 column. The
> > differences from 2003 to 2011 aren't that great that it's very
> > useful to analyze the differences, and 1999 and 1992 are really
> > only of archeological interest. (For example, it's not going to
> > be of any practical relevance to attempt to use a key word that
> > was unreserved in 1999 but reserved later. A number of other
> > vendors will have reserved it by now as well.) We would, however,
> > lose a few key words that were reserved in earlier versions of the
> > standard but then removed (e.g., BIT). Maybe those could be added
> > with a note or something.
>
> Perhaps it'd be useful to keep just SQL-92 and SQL:2011, to give
> some sense of how the standard's keyword set has evolved over time
> while not making the table too wide.
+1 :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL key word list and SQL:2011
@ 2012-05-21 13:18 Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
parent: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Riggs @ 2012-05-21 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On 19 May 2012 14:00, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> What I'd suggest is that we keep only the SQL:2011 column. The
> differences from 2003 to 2011 aren't that great that it's very useful to
> analyze the differences, and 1999 and 1992 are really only of
> archeological interest.
The SQL:2011 standard replaces previous standards, so I agree: we
should only list the current version of the standard. The previous
versions of the standard are simply no longer relevant.
If people want that, we could have a little text at bottom saying
Changes between 2008 and 2011 etc.. if that really is interesting -
and if it really is then it should be listed as incompatibilities in
the release notes.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-05-21 13:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-05-19 18:00 SQL key word list and SQL:2011 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2012-05-19 18:31 ` Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
2012-05-20 15:25 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2012-05-20 19:28 ` David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
2012-05-21 13:18 ` Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox