| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
| Date: | 2001-11-09 04:52:28 |
| Message-ID: | 19440.1005281548@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> I'd hate to see it be us that makes life more difficult for
> ppl to make choices because we 'softened restrictions' on reserved words,
> allowing someone to create an app that works great under us, but is now a
> headache to change to someone else's RDBMSs as a result ...
Well, I could see making a "strict SQL" mode that rejects *all* PG-isms,
but in the absence of such a thing I don't see much value to taking a
hard line just on the point of disallowing keywords as field names.
That seems unlikely to be anyone's worst porting headache ...
Your question is valid though: do other RDBMSs take a hard line on
how reserved keywords are? I dunno.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-11-09 06:21:57 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-09 04:51:25 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-09 05:07:37 | Re: Enhanced index details using \d in psql |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-09 04:51:25 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |