Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SQL keywords

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL keywords
Date: 2000-12-16 08:08:48
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docs
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The section on SQL keywords in the User's Guide needs some updating.
> I figured that I could generate these various lists of reserved and
> non-reserved keywords automatically --- and indeed I can!
> But now I've got 36 lists of keywords (all the set differences between
> SQL92 reserved/non-reserved, SQL99 reserved/non-reserved, PG
> reserved/non-reserved (which is a simplification)) -- none of which are
> empty (some keywords where dropped from reserved to non-reserved between
> SQL92 and 99) -- but that's more than anyone wants to know.
> But does anyone know what they do want to know?
> The list of PostgreSQL reserved words seems to be the only thing I can see
> as definitely essential.  But which is more important:  The list of words
> that are reserved in PG but *not* reserved in SQLxx (i.e., what problems
> can I expect when porting stuff to PG), or the opposite (i.e., what words
> should I avoid when writing portable SQL).

It could be a good thing to have a table of the form

Keyword    |  PostgreSQL  |   SQL 92    |   SQL 99    |
SELECT     |   Reserved   |   Reserved  |   Reserved  |
WITH       |       -      |      -      |   Reserved  |
IN         |      Yes     |      -      |   Reserved  |


In response to


pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Emmanuel CharpentierDate: 2000-12-16 08:47:58
Subject: Re: SQL keywords
Previous:From: Ross J. ReedstromDate: 2000-12-15 23:38:01
Subject: Re: SQL keywords

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group