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 56B0132BFD4 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:53:24 +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 91597-04 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:53:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.pha.pa.us [207.106.42.251]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53EC32BF88 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:53:18 +0100 (BST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9FGr1G13296; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:53:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200410151653.i9FGr1G13296@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: Some developer FAQ links need updating In-Reply-To: <10250.1097859064@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:53:01 -0400 (EDT) Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" , 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: 200410/40 X-Sequence-Number: 2609 Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: > > There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are > > considered deprecated? > > The old ones are certainly not "deprecated". > > Personally I find the newer versions to be suffering from uncontrolled > feature bloat and committee-itis. That was my feeling too. I know many cases the older specifications were clearer. Anyway, I think the new "There are three versions of the SQL standard" wording is OK. -- 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