Re: SQL/JSON functions vs. ECPG vs. STRING as a reserved word

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL/JSON functions vs. ECPG vs. STRING as a reserved word
Date: 2022-07-03 17:08:36
Message-ID: 1277983.1656868116@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 05:20:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [allow EXEC SQL TYPE unreserved_keyword IS ...]

> I didn't locate any problems beyond the test and doc gaps that you mentioned,
> so I've marked this Ready for Committer.

Thanks! Here's a fleshed-out version with doc changes, plus adjustment
of preproc/type.pgc so that it exposes the existing problem. (No code
changes from v1.) I'll push this in a few days if there are not
objections.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
handle-unreserved-typedef-names-2.patch text/x-diff 21.1 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-07-03 17:17:02 Re: PSA: Autoconf has risen from the dead
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2022-07-03 17:07:54 Re: O(n) tasks cause lengthy startups and checkpoints