[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3256?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13452031#comment-13452031
]
Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-3256:
--------------------------------------
Regressions passed with the proof-of-concept patch.
> 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: derbykeywords-1.diff, derbykeywords-1.stat, 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.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
