Обсуждение: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: SQL 200N -> SQL:2003
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. regards, tom lane
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.