SQL standard changed behavior of ON UPDATE SET NULL/SET DEFAULT?

While looking at Vik Reykja's pending patch to improve the FK triggers
by skipping processing when a NULL column didn't change, I started to
wonder whether that really had no user-visible semantic effect.
In particular, in ON UPDATE SET NULL/SET DEFAULT cases, it seemed like
this could change the set of referencing columns that get set to NULL
or to their defaults.  So the next question was which behavior actually
conforms to the SQL standard, and the answer to that is ... disturbing.

The code in ri_triggers.c was written against SQL92's definition of ON
UPDATE SET NULL/SET DEFAULT, which is (ignoring the MATCH PARTIAL case,
which we don't implement):
        6) If an <update rule> is specified and a non-null value of a ref-           erenced column in the referenced
tableis updated to a value           that is distinct from the current value of that column, then
 
           a) If <match type> is not specified or if FULL is specified,             then
            ii) If the <update rule> specifies SET NULL, then
                Case:
                1) If <match type> is not specified, then in all matching                  rows the referencing column
thatcorresponds with the                  referenced column is set to the null value.
 
                2) If <match type> specifies FULL, then in all matching                  rows each referencing column
isset to the null value.
 
           iii) If the <update rule> specifies SET DEFAULT, then in all                matching rows the referencing
columnthat corresponds with                the referenced column is set to the default value specified
inthe General Rules of Subclause 11.5, "<default clause>".
 

Note that only in the MATCH FULL + SET NULL case does it say to set
*all* the referencing columns in each matching row.  Otherwise, you are
only supposed to change columns that correspond to referenced columns
that were changed.  It's notable that SET NULL and SET DEFAULT have
different behaviors here.

On the other hand, in SQL:2008 I find (some boilerplate text omitted):
10) If a non-null value of a referenced column RC in thereferenced table is updated to a value that is distinct from
thecurrentvalue of RC, then, for every member F of the subtablefamily of the referencing table:
 
Case:
  a) If M specifies SIMPLE or FULL, then
    Case:
    ii) If UR specifies SET NULL, then
      Case:
        1) If M specifies SIMPLE, then each matching row        MR in F is paired with the candidate replacement
rowNMR, formed by copying MR and setting each        referencing column in the copy to the null        value. MR is
identifiedfor replacement by NMR        in F.
 
        2) If M specifies FULL, then each matching row        MR in F is paired with the candidate replacement
rowNMR, formed by copying MR and setting each        referencing column in the copy to the null        value. MR is
identifiedfor replacement by NMR        in F.
 
    iii) If UR specifies SET DEFAULT, then each matching row    MR in F is paired with the candidate replacement row
NMR,formed by copying MR and setting each referencing    column in the copy to the default value specified in the
GeneralRules of Subclause 11.5, "<default clause>". MR    is identified for replacement by NMR in F.
 

So far as I can see, this says to set *all* referencing columns to
nulls or their defaults, in all four cases, whether the corresponding
referenced column was one that changed or not.  This is very clearly
different from what SQL92 says.  It's also rather curious that they
distinguish two "cases" for SET NULL when the texts are exactly alike.

It looks to me like this change occurred in SQL:2003, although
SQL:1999's version of the text is such badly written pseudo-mathematical
gobbledygook that it's a bit hard to tell which behavior they meant.
However, neither of those specs list any change in referential
constraint behavior as being an acknowledged incompatibility with the
prior standard.  Have the SQL committee simply failed to notice that in
whacking this text around they changed the meaning?  Which behavior is
actually implemented by other RDBMSes?
        regards, tom lane