Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> If people are really concerned about whether a given feature conforms to
> SQL-92, SQL:1999, or SQL:2003, all we have done is provided them with
> the same information in a slightly different form.
No, you have *removed* the information. The convention we were
effectively following was that a reference to "SQL-xxxx" rather than
just "SQL" implies that xxxx was the first version to say that.
I agree with Peter that a search-and-replace patch is entirely
off the mark. Please revert it and do some research instead.
regards, tom lane