Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh
Date: 2000-02-29 17:19:02
Message-ID: 200002291719.MAA26261@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-sql
> > > If not, I'd vote for pulling it out.  That's a heck of a poor word to
> > > reserve.
> > I am afraid of lots of user complaints, even if we had not already used
> > TEMP.
> 
> OK, but we've already got "user complaints" about TEMP being a
> reserved word, so that part seems to balance out. There is apparently
> no basis in published standards for TEMP being a reserved word. And
> btw it is not currently documented as a reserved word in
> syntax.sgml...

OK, I certainly didn't look at the standard to when I implemented TEMP
tables.  In fact, I was surprised it worked considering it is just a
hack on the cache code.

Let's forget I made a mistake, and consider how many people are going to
think they should use TEMP and how many TEMPORARY.  I personally would
guess TEMP and never TEMPORARY.  I wonder if others would too.

So are we willing to field questions from people trying to use TEMP
tables and trying TEMP and not TEMPORARY.  I realize the restriction on
a field called TEMP, but we don't get those very often.  How many people
are going to guess TEMP and not TEMPORARY?

Of course, as a Unix guy, I may have guessed TMP too.  :-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-02-29 17:21:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-02-29 16:48:33
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-02-29 17:21:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-02-29 16:38:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group