To: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
From: Troels Arvin <troels@arvin.dk>
Subject: Re: SQL conformance related patch
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:28:56 +0100
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <pan.2004.11.25.21.28.55.956811@arvin.dk>
References: <1101381875.3068.27.camel@localhost>
	<200411251916.47145.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<pan.2004.11.25.19.57.39.350230@arvin.dk>
	<200411252213.01890.peter_e@gmx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table)

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:13:01 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> I could buy "SQL:1999", because then "SQL" would be a macro expanding to 
> "ISO/IEC 9075".  But I don't see how SQL-92 fits in there.

There was a naming change between SQL-92 and SQL:1999, according to the
mentioned book.
  The ":" is because the standard's name has been brought in line with
ISO's naming standards. The expansion to four digits was because of the
general year-2000 trend.

>> Note 1:
>> http://books.elsevier.com/mk/default.asp?isbn=1558604561 has a
>> section on this subject.
> 
> Note that this book is titled "SQL 1999 - Understanding Relational 
> Language Components".  Apparently, they are not sure either.

Yes, that's ironic. But I have the book right here. There is clearly a ":"
in the name on the front page, as well as in the colophon.

-- 
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark