On Wed, 01 Mar 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
> > I vote for the SQL92 TEMPORARY. Let's not add a keyword that is non-standard
> > just because one or another commercial database makes use of it,
> You're missing the point: we are not talking about *adding* a keyword,
> we're talking about *removing* one that we've already supported for
> a year or so. That changes matters considerably, IMHO.
> I have in fact been able to make a conflict-free grammar in which TEMP
> is accepted but not reserved. It requires a certain amount of
> redundancy in the productions (see below), but I think this is a
> worthwhile tradeoff for not breaking existing user code.
> Shall I commit this?
Is there not also the possibility of making this a configure-time option?
./configure --temporary-table=TEMPORARY # or TEMP as you wish
Default to TEMPORARY in accord with SQL 92.
NAME Christopher Sawtell - Support Engineer - iOpen Technologies Ltd.
CELL PHONE 021 257 4451
ICQ UIN 45863470
EMAIL chris @ iopen . co . nz, csawtell @ xtra . co . nz
---->>> Please refrain from using HTML attachments in e-mails to me. <<<----
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: The Hermit Hacker||Date: 2000-03-01 04:02:44|
|Subject: Poll: Databases for Linux |
|Previous:||From: The Hermit Hacker||Date: 2000-03-01 03:17:37|
|Subject: select exists (select oid from users)|
pgsql-sql by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2000-03-01 06:14:51|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns
|Previous:||From: Fan Chi Kam||Date: 2000-03-01 01:21:37|
|Subject: Need help on creating index for a query w/ 4 greater-than conditions|