| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OUTER keyword |
| Date: | 2011-02-22 15:13:59 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimf8pA9KSXc6TKa6q9X9XZZgYsZSY66BjyxwDr1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On 22.02.2011 16:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> It this a TODO?
>
>> If we want to change OUTER, we should just do it now. If not, I don't
>> see a TODO here.
>
> I don't see a good reason to change it. The SQL standard is perfectly
> clear that OUTER is a fully reserved word.
My vote would be to change it. We don't normally reserve keywords
unnecessarily.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-22 15:15:07 | Re: Void binary patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-22 15:10:50 | Re: OUTER keyword |