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 B02D932C8FD for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:25:14 +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 51510-09 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:25:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.pha.pa.us [207.106.42.251]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E1E32C8F1 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:25:10 +0100 (BST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9F3Owt21113; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:24:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200410150324.i9F3Owt21113@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: Some developer FAQ links need updating In-Reply-To: <416F299A.3030801@commandprompt.com> To: "Joshua D. Drake" Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:24:58 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Peter Eisentraut , Troels Arvin , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL108 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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: 200410/35 X-Sequence-Number: 2604 Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > > >>Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > >> > >>> There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003. > >>> > >>> > >>Actually, they are just different versions of the single major standard. > >> > >> > > > >Wording suggestion? > > > > > > There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are > considered deprecated? I don't think so. Some database say they are SQL99-compliant while not SQL-2003 compliant. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073