Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tatsuo Ishii" <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch
Date: 2008-09-17 12:12:09
Message-ID: 603c8f070809170512p64f24064u22a78a6c3a43b103@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> 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.

I disagree. I have never ported an app written for PostgreSQL to
another database system, and have no plans to start. The fact that
some other database system might barf on a particular bit of SQL is
insufficient reason for PostgreSQL to do the same thing.

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. But there is no reason for the
database system to unilaterally shove that down everyone's throat. It
is very easy to overdo the idea of protecting users from themselves.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-09-17 12:16:52 Re: [PATCHES] libpq events patch (with sgml docs)
Previous Message Andrew Chernow 2008-09-17 10:50:16 Re: [PATCHES] libpq events patch (with sgml docs)