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