| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 02:28:32 |
| Message-ID: | 3BEB3F50.19A3B220@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Since we've already seen two complaints about "timestamp" no longer
> being an allowed column name in 7.2, I think it's probably time to
> make a serious effort at trimming the reserved-word list a little.
Cool.
The only reservation I have (pun not *really* intended ;) is that the
SQL9x reserved words may continue to impact us into the future, so
freeing them up now may just postpone the pain until later. That
probably is not a good enough argument (*I* don't even like it) but any
extra flexibility we put in now is not guaranteed to last forever...
In either case, having reserved words which are also reserved in the SQL
standard will not keep folks from using PostgreSQL, and allowing them
will not be a difference maker in adoption either imho.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-09 02:34:37 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-09 02:17:17 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-09 02:34:37 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-09 02:17:17 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |