Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Troels Arvin wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:27:13 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > I have installed your patch and adjusted the names of the standards
> > throughout to the spellings sugge
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:27:13 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I have installed your patch and adjusted the names of the standards
> throughout to the spellings suggested by your book.
Great.
A follow-up patch for current CVS HEAD is attached, and available at
http://troels.arvin.dk/db/pgsql/con
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 22:34, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The sections Supported Features and Unsupported Features cover both
> > Mandatory (Core) and Optional features in the same section. It would
> > be better to separate these, just as the SQL standard itself does in
> > Ann
Troels Arvin wrote:
> Simon Riggs, Elein Mustain, and I have worked on adjustments to the
> information schema and parts of the documentation to reflect upcoming
> changes in PostgreSQL 8 and changes from SQL:1999 to SQL:2003.
I have installed your patch and adjusted the names of the standards
th
Simon Riggs wrote:
> The sections Supported Features and Unsupported Features cover both
> Mandatory (Core) and Optional features in the same section. It would
> be better to separate these, just as the SQL standard itself does in
> Annex F - SQL Feature Taxonomy.
>
> This seems especially importan
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 11:24, Troels Arvin wrote:
> Simon also has ideas for improvement of the conformance documentation
> page (features.sgml), but that's probably a version 8.1 thing. I think
> he'd better describe the ideas himself.
...since you mention it, I should explain:
The sections Suppo
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:13:01 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I could buy "SQL:1999", because then "SQL" would be a macro expanding to
> "ISO/IEC 9075". But I don't see how SQL-92 fits in there.
There was a naming change between SQL-92 and SQL:1999, according to the
mentioned book.
The ":" is
Troels Arvin wrote:
> We have tried to use the official[1] short names:
> SQL-92
> SQL:1999
> SQL:2003
I could buy "SQL:1999", because then "SQL" would be a macro expanding to
"ISO/IEC 9075". But I don't see how SQL-92 fits in there.
> Note 1:
> http://books.elsevier.com/mk/default.asp?isbn=155
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:16:47 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Btw., does anyone mind if I change the names of the standards to
>
> SQL 1992
> SQL 1999
> SQL 2003
>
> ? The other styles seem to be rather contrived and are not applied
> consistently.
We have tried to use the official[1] short na
Troels Arvin wrote:
> Simon Riggs, Elein Mustain, and I have worked on adjustments to the
> information schema and parts of the documentation to reflect upcoming
> changes in PostgreSQL 8 and changes from SQL:1999 to SQL:2003.
Thanks. I will evaluate this patch.
Btw., does anyone mind if I chang
Hello,
Simon Riggs, Elein Mustain, and I have worked on adjustments to the
information schema and parts of the documentation to reflect upcoming
changes in PostgreSQL 8 and changes from SQL:1999 to SQL:2003.
Attached is the result of that: A "diff -c" patch for current CVS HEAD.
The patch is also
11 matches
Mail list logo
