To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
cc: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SQL key word list and SQL:2011 
In-reply-to: <1337450452.10292.11.camel@vanquo.pezone.net> 
References: <1337450452.10292.11.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
	message dated "Sat, 19 May 2012 21:00:52 +0300"
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:25:58 -0400
Message-ID: <19494.1337527558@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

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