Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh
Date: 2000-02-29 14:57:56
Message-ID: 28927.951836276@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

>>>> If not, I'd vote for pulling it out. That's a heck of a poor word to
>>>> reserve.
>> I am afraid of lots of user complaints, even if we had not already used
>> TEMP.

> OK, but we've already got "user complaints" about TEMP being a
> reserved word, so that part seems to balance out. There is apparently
> no basis in published standards for TEMP being a reserved word. And
> btw it is not currently documented as a reserved word in
> syntax.sgml...

The real problem is not that we accept TEMP as a synonym for TEMPORARY;
it is that we treat TEMP as a reserved word. What are the chances that
we could make it a member of the ColId list? I am thinking that
"... INTO TEMP temp" is *not* ambiguous given one token lookahead...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-02-29 14:59:17 Re: [HACKERS] interesting observatation regarding views and V7.0
Previous Message Don Baccus 2000-02-29 14:56:04 Re: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-02-29 16:09:37 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh
Previous Message Don Baccus 2000-02-29 14:35:25 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh