| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL/JSON functions vs. ECPG vs. STRING as a reserved word |
| Date: | 2022-05-31 15:09:23 |
| Message-ID: | dd872101-eb10-8a6f-ef64-d371a1b3a7a2@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-05-29 Su 16:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> More generally, I feel like we have a process problem: there needs to
> be a higher bar to adding new fully- or even partially-reserved words.
> I might've missed it, but I don't recall that there was any discussion
> of the compatibility implications of this change.
>
Thanks for fixing this while I was away.
I did in fact raise the issue on 1 Feb, see
<https://postgr.es/m/f174a289-3274-569d-875c-2e810101df22@dunslane.net>,
but nobody responded that I recall. I guess I should have pushed the
discussion further
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2022-05-31 15:59:23 | Re: PostgreSQL Limits: maximum number of columns in SELECT result |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-05-31 15:09:11 | Re: PG15 beta1 sort performance regression due to Generation context change |