Re: Exposing keywords to clients

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Exposing keywords to clients
Date: 2008-05-03 17:12:41
Message-ID: 9669.1209834761@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Dave Page wrote:
>>> Perhaps use a separate string for machine parse (say R, T, C, U), and
>>> let the string be translatable.
>>
>> I considered that, but wasn't sure if folks would like the redundancy.
>> It's trivial to do of course - any objections?

> Is there anything useful you would do with this information? Or would you
> just quote all listed words anyway?

I think the practical application would be to avoid quoting unreserved
keywords, as pg_dump for instance already does. I doubt anyone would
bother distinguishing the different types of partially/wholly reserved
words. So maybe a boolean would be sufficient --- but I have nothing
against the R/T/C/U suggestion.

A more radical alternative is just to omit unreserved words from the
view altogether.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-05-03 17:14:35 Re: configure option for XLOG_BLCKSZ
Previous Message Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum 2008-05-03 16:38:02 Re: create or replace language