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
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 |