From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jan Behrens <jbe-mlist(at)magnetkern(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: Sanding down some edge cases for PL/pgSQL reserved words |
Date: | 2025-06-10 04:40:42 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAqkYD63m82LK5ETMrrZ7-FccVPhqB_yRsz51jrkT2rHw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
>
> 1. AFAICS, there is no real reason for STRICT to be a reserved
> rather than unreserved PL/pgSQL keyword, and for that matter not
> EXECUTE either. Making them unreserved does allow some ambiguity,
> but I don't think there's any surprises in how that ambiguity
> would be resolved; and certainly we've preferred ambiguity over
> introducing new reserved keywords in PL/pgSQL before. I think
> these two just escaped that treatment by dint of being ancient.
>
>
I checked other reserved keywords and I didn't see any reason to be
reserved keywords
for K_TO, K_NOT.
K_FOREACH, and K_WHILE are reserved probably because are used after
opt_loop_label - but it is not necessary
Other keywords are used as some delimiter or as protection against parser's
conflicts.
Regards
Pavel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-06-10 05:15:38 | Re: macos exported symbols list not used for loadable modules |
Previous Message | Nisha Moond | 2025-06-10 03:15:38 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |