| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) |
| Date: | 1999-09-29 13:10:29 |
| Message-ID: | 37F20FC5.55444A1B@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > CONSTRAINTS
> > > DEFERRABLE
> > > DEFERRED
> > > IMMEDIATE
> > > INITIALLY
> > > PENDANT
> > > RESTRICT
> O.K. - I was able to add them all to ColId without conflicts
> for now. Let's see what happens after adding the syntax for
> CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER.
Right. Anything which causes trouble can be demoted to ColLabel.
> I'm not sure which of them are SQL92 or SQL3, at least they
> are all SQL3 "reserved" words according to the SQL3 draft.
According to my Date and Darwen (which is mostly SQL92), all of these
except "PENDANT" are SQL92 reserved words. PENDANT is not mentioned,
so is presumably an SQL3-ism.
Do you want me to update syntax.sgml?
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zakkr | 1999-09-29 13:31:29 | Re: [HACKERS] string function |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-09-29 13:02:10 | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block |