>>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I am not sure, if these rule is good. Somebody who develop on
>>> postgresql should have a problems when they will be port to other
>>> databases in future. Reserved words in standards should be
respected.
>
>> If people want to write code that will work on multiple databases,
>> they should of course avoid using any SQL reserved words for
anything
>> other than their reserved purposes.
>
> More than that, they have to actually test their SQL on each target
DB.
> Every DB (including us) is going to have some reserved words that
are
> not in the standard; so imagining that Postgres can all by itself
> protect you from this type of problem is doomed to failure anyway.
If someone wants portable code, they can use a development tool which
wraps ALL identifiers in quotes, every time. That's what we do. The
important thing is that, to the extent practicable, standard SQL code
is accepted and behaves in compliance with the standard. I don't see
that it does anything to compromise that if you support additional,
non-standard syntax for extensions.
-Kevin