On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 14:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Some time ago, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 13. Juli 2005 18:01 schrieb Simon Riggs:
> >> This doc patch replaces all inappropriate references to SQL:1999 when it
> >> is used as if it were the latest (and/or still valid) SQL standard.
> >>
> >> SQL:2003 is used in its place.
...
> > Also, phrases like "This is conforming to SQL:2003." give the wrong
> > impression that it is not conforming to SQL:1999. I think it would be less
> > confusing in these cases to simply write "This is conforming to the SQL
> > standard." and then mention in the appendix that we consider SQL:2003 to be
> > the baseline.
>
> I agree: we should just say SQL except where there is an intention to
> distinguish different versions of the spec, and in that case mention
> the earliest spec version for which the particular statement is true.
> This convention will not require any future search-and-replaces.
>
> Barring some fairly convincing objections, I am going to undo most of
> this patch later this week, and instead do it as Peter suggests.
Agreed. No need for future changes is a convincing argument.
Should we make the phrase "SQL Standard" an xref to the appropriate
section in the docs? That would help with any further confusion on this.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
