Re: OUTER keyword

I wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Why is OUTER a type_func_name_keyword? The grammar doesn't require that,
>> it could as well be unreserved.

> Hm, you sure? All the JOIN-related keywords used to need to be at least
> that to avoid conflicts, IIRC.

Actually, on reflection, it's possible that only JOIN itself really
needs that treatment (because it can be followed by a left paren).
We might have made the JOIN modifier words the same level for
consistency or something. If we can back off both INNER and OUTER
to unreserved, it might be worth doing. I'd be a little more worried
about reducing LEFT/RIGHT/FULL, even if it works at the moment.

regards, tom lane