On Tuesday 21 October 2008 19:59:02 Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 14:26 +0000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
> >>
> >> Why not SQL:2008?
> >
> > Peter?
>
> If the comment was meant to refer to SQL:2003 originally, it should
> probably be left that way. I don't want to get into the game of doing a
> global search-and-replace every time a new spec comes out. If anything,
> comments referring to particular spec versions should probably make a
> habit of referring to the *oldest* version in which a given feature
> exists, not the newest.
That was the idea. I don't care much one way or another, but SQL:200N is
obviously not very clear.