On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:42:45PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 03:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 02:42:25AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> It's not like we haven't seen a SQL draft go down in flames > > >> before. > > > > > Do you think that anything in the windowing functions section > > > will disappear? > > > > Who's to say? > > > > I have no objection to looking at the 2003 and 200n documents in > > parallel, especially if there are places where 200n clarifies the > > intent of 2003. But I'd be suspicious of designing around > > entirely-new features presented by 200n. > > I have confirmation from Michael Gorman, Wiscorp, that > > > The new standard was approved in early Summer. SQL 2008 is > > finished. > > So as of now, SQL2008 exists, all hail. SQL2003 and earlier versions > have been superseded and can be ignored.
Any chance we can buy a few copies of the official one for use on the project? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers