Обсуждение: Re: Some developer FAQ links need updating
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.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt. A draft of
the SQL99 standard is at
http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/dbms/Data/Papers-Other/SQL1999/ansi-iso-9075-2-1999.pdf.
The draft SQL 2003 standard is at
http://www.wiscorp.com/sql/sql_2003_standard.zip
Some SQL standards web pages are:
* http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/links/#standards
* http://www.wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html
* http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql.html#syntax (SQL92)
* http://dbs.uni-leipzig.de/en/lokal/standards.pdf (paper)
Also the Developer FAQ link on the developers page was out of date but
has just been fixed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troels Arvin wrote:
> Hello Bruce,
>
> About http://developer.postgresql.org/readtext.php?src/FAQ/FAQ_DEV.html
> +Developers-FAQ#1.12 :
>
> The section's first link could be more direct:
> http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql.html#syntax
>
> The sqlstandards.org FTP-sites seems to be either down (some of the
> time) or password-demanding (the rest of the time). I suggest that you
> link to http://www.wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html or
> http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/links/#standards instead.
>
> The http://db.konkuk.ac.kr/present/SQL3.pdf link has 404ed. I suggest
> adding http://www.acm.org/sigmod/record/issues/0403/index.html#standards
> instead.
>
> --
> Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
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 going to give URLs for sql2003 ? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "La soledad es compañía"
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:2003 was ratified early 2004.) -- Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark
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 SQL-92 and SQL:2003, by the way? (SQL:2003 was
> ratified early 2004.)
Updated. I wasn't aware SQL:2003 was ratified.
New text is:
1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards?
There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.
These standards are endorsed by ANSI and ISO. Draft
versions can be download from:
* SQL-92 http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt
* SQL:1999 http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/dbms/Data/Papers-Other/SQL1999/ansi-iso-9075-2-1999.pdf
* SQL:2003 http://www.wiscorp.com/sql/sql_2003_standard.zip
Some SQL standards web pages are:
* http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/links/#standards
* http://www.wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html
* http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql.html#syntax (SQL-92)
* http://dbs.uni-leipzig.de/en/lokal/standards.pdf (paper)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
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/
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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian wrote:
There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are considered deprecated?
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 is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are considered deprecated?
-- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
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. > >> > >> > > > >Wording suggestion? > > > > > > There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are > considered deprecated? I don't think so. Some database say they are SQL99-compliant while not SQL-2003 compliant. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
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 silly. In the same way, someone could make a product that is certified for PostgreSQL 7.2.1. Or someone could write an HTML-compliant browser, only that it might be HTML 3.2. 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, and it would be more useful for users to, say, specify a workable set of requirements for their applications. Nevertheless, it would surely be useful to list SQL92 and SQL99 as older versions, just like many people still code to HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML 1.1, and just like many people still use PostgreSQL 7.2.1, inspite of it not conforming to any standard, as far as I know. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
OK, new wording:
<P>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, 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 silly. In the
> same way, someone could make a product that is certified for PostgreSQL
> 7.2.1. Or someone could write an HTML-compliant browser, only that it might
> be HTML 3.2.
>
> 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, and it would be more
> useful for users to, say, specify a workable set of requirements for their
> applications.
>
> Nevertheless, it would surely be useful to list SQL92 and SQL99 as older
> versions, just like many people still code to HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML 1.1,
> and just like many people still use PostgreSQL 7.2.1, inspite of it not
> conforming to any standard, as far as I know.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
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, and it would be > more useful for users to, say, specify a workable set of requirements for > their applications. FWIW, there's two standards that application developers are concerned with as far as I can tell: SQL92, which is the "stable" standard that ensures cross-database compatibility (as well as the only standard that is readable) and SQL2003, which is the current standard and ensures buzzowrd-compliance as well as future prospects. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> 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.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> 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. That was my feeling too. I know many cases the older specifications were clearer. Anyway, I think the new "There are three versions of the SQL standard" wording is OK. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073