[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3256?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kathey Marsden updated DERBY-3256:
----------------------------------
Component/s: SQL
> Derby's reserved keyword list does not agree with either the SQL 92 or SQL
> 2003 standards
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3256
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3256
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.3.1.4
> Reporter: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: keywords.tar
>
>
> According to the comments in sqlgrammar.jj, Derby's understanding of reserved
> vs. non-reserved keywords is supposed to be based on SQL 92. However, Derby
> has 8 reserved keywords which are not part of the SQL 92 list of reserved
> keywords. The SQL 2003 spec moved many of the SQL 92 reserved keywords to the
> non-reserved list. Derby has 55 reserved keywords which are not part of the
> SQL 2003 list. 42 of Derby's reserved keywords are in the SQL 2003 list of
> non-reserved keywords.
> The reserved keywords create migration problems when moving applications from
> other databases to Derby. We should consider whether there is any reason that
> Derby should have more reserved keywords than appear in the SQL 2003 standard.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
