Message-ID: <4FB7E716.2090004@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 21:31:50 +0300
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:10.0.4) Gecko/20120510 Icedove/10.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SQL key word list and SQL:2011
References: <1337450452.10292.11.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
In-Reply-To: <1337450452.10292.11.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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