The target is moving. Your question: "Have any vendors moved beyond SQL-92?" The answer is a clear yes. The question was not, "Do all major RDBMSs support the s

The target is moving. Your question: "Have any vendors moved beyond SQL-92?" The answer is a clear yes. The question was not, "Do all major RDBMSs support the same subset of the SQL standard?" The implied concern with the new question is portability of code across databases. This is a red herring based only on some snippets of SQL syntax and features.[0] Even if the SQL were identical, no major RDBMS has as its selling point that it only supports the SQL standard. Additionally, even with identical SQL, the implementations in each RDBMS are different enough that logically equivalent code would still need to be rewritten. One example: There is nothing in the SQL standard about optimization of queries. One place this shines through is in Postgres CTEs vs MS SQL Server CTEs (I cannot speak to other implementations). In Postgres, a CTE is an optimization boundary - predicates from the query utilizing a CTE will not be pushed down into the CTE. The entire CTE is executed each time it is referenced. This is in contrast to the behavior of sub-queries, which do support predicates being pushed down into them. In SQL Server, CTEs are just an in-line view definition and do support predicates being pushed into the CTE from the outer query. Any codebase converting from MS SQL Server to Postgres would need to have every instance of CTE use evaluated for performance. [0] The previously linked deck highlights only some advanced excerpts of the SQL standard. The venn diagram of supported SQL constructs is much more overlap than exclusive.