Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243B62B4151 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 16:28:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 173-164-140-181-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.164.140.181] helo=fetter.org) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SWBo8-0005oG-6d for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Sun, 20 May 2012 19:28:49 +0000 Received: by fetter.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 300C78071E; Sun, 20 May 2012 12:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 12:28:35 -0700 From: David Fetter To: Tom Lane Cc: Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-docs Subject: Re: SQL key word list and SQL:2011 Message-ID: <20120520192835.GC25017@fetter.org> References: <1337450452.10292.11.camel@vanquo.pezone.net> <19494.1337527558@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19494.1337527558@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) X-Archive-Number: 201205/20 X-Sequence-Number: 7345 On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:25:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut 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 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