Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA575650209
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:33:24 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 47988-05 for
	<pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:33:21 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59E065020A
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:33:20 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAQDXH6m006893;
	Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:33:17 -0500 (EST)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
cc: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Key word table update for SQL:2008 
In-reply-to: <492D0C24.2010701@gmx.net> 
References: <492D0C24.2010701@gmx.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
	message dated "Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:43:16 +0200"
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:33:17 -0500
Message-ID: <6892.1227706397@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200811/19
X-Sequence-Number: 5004

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I was planning to update the key words table 
> (http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-keywords-appendix.html) 
> for SQL:2008 and was wondering whether there is interest in keeping the 
> SQL-92 through SQL:2003 columns.  It might look a bit overloaded then.

> Comments?

Perhaps the most useful thing would be to keep SQL-92 and latest, so
as to show the "full range" in what's been reserved or not in different
spec revisions.

			regards, tom lane