Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Reserving additional words from the second group poses a bigger issue as
users' may have databases out there already using these words as
identifiers. The smoothest path is probably to give people an indication
of which words will need to be reserved at some point and hence should
be avoided; it is better for us to do this earlier than later.
Actually having even keywords defined as reserved by the SQL Standard reserved in Derby has caused problems. I recently changed LOCAL not to be a reserved word as other databases do not enforce it. We probably need some set rules, but reserving because the SQL standard says so it not the approach taken by other products.
Dan.
I agree that words should not be reserved when it is not needed. Just wondering what should developers
need to do in future if a SQL standard word is put into an un-reserved list (warning list) need to be used
in the future releases ? as it is likely to break an existing application on an upgrade.
Thanks -suresht
