Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are
> > considered deprecated?
>
> The old ones are certainly not "deprecated".
>
> Personally I find the newer versions to be suffering from uncontrolled
> feature b
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are
> considered deprecated?
The old ones are certainly not "deprecated".
Personally I find the newer versions to be suffering from uncontrolled
feature bloat and committee-itis.
Peter, Folks:
> Since we have limited resources, I think it's OK that we concentrate on
> working with the latest official standards version. And because the latest
> standards version is modularized and has individual feature lists and
> packages, it would be a lot easier for us to look good, an
OK, new wording:
There are three versions of the SQL standard: SQL-92, SQL:1999,
and SQL:2003. They are endorsed by ANSI and ISO. Draft versions
can be download from:
---
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag
Am Freitag, 15. Oktober 2004 05:24 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> I don't think so. Some database say they are SQL99-compliant while not
> SQL-2003 compliant.
Clearly, consenting parties are free to agree on making their products conform
to any standards document, be it old or new or deprecated or sil
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Actually, they are just different versions of the single major standard.
> >>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.
Actually, they are just different versions of the single major standard.
Wording suggestion?
There i
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.
>
> Actually, they are just different versions of the single major standard.
Wording suggestion?
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL P
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.
Actually, they are just different versions of the single major standard.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)
Troels Arvin wrote:
> Hello Bruce,
>
> On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 17:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have updated it to:
> >
> > 1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards?
> > [...]
>
> Great.
>
> > There are two major standards, SQL92 and SQL99.
>
> Shouldn't that be
Hello Bruce,
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 17:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have updated it to:
>
> 1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards?
> [...]
Great.
> There are two major standards, SQL92 and SQL99.
Shouldn't that be SQL-92 and SQL:2003, by the way? (SQL
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 05:19:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Thanks. I have updated it to:
>
> 1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards?
>
> There are two major standards, SQL92 and SQL99.
Ah, shouldn't this say "there are three major ..." if you are goin
Thanks. I have updated it to:
1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards?
There are two major standards, SQL92 and SQL99. These standards are
endorsed by ANSI and ISO. A draft of the SQL92 standard is available at
http://www.contrib.andrew.
13 matches
Mail list logo
