From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Chris Storah <cstorah(at)emis-support(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: create table bug with reserved words? |
Date: | 2001-02-16 17:11:34 |
Message-ID: | 12335.982343494@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> But since the problematic word in your case is not CALL but SELECT, I can
> tell you right away with relative certainty that it will not be possible
> to change the parser to accept SELECT as an identifier in all contexts
> without butchering the grammar beyond reason.
You can drop the "without" qualifier ;-) --- it's not possible period.
Counterexample:
SELECT (SELECT (3)) FROM foo;
Is the second SELECT a (rather vacuous) sub-select, or is it a call of a
function named SELECT?
If you've got a really strong urge to use some keyword as an identifier,
that's what double quotes are for. But the SQL syntax does require a
lot of keywords to be reserved. I believe that we are actually more
permissive in this respect than the SQL spec expects us to be.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Storah | 2001-02-16 17:16:56 | RE: create table bug with reserved words? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-02-16 16:33:31 | RE: create table bug with reserved words? |