Hi
> >> 2. That "has no field" error message is flat-out wrong. The now-known >> way to trigger it has a different cause, and what's more, we simply do >> not know at this point whether the malleable record type has such a >> field. So in 0002 below I just changed it to assume that the problem >> is a reserved field name. We might find another way to reach that >> failure in future, but I doubt that "has no field" would be the right >> thing to say in any case. >> > > The proposed patch is a zero invasive solution. But the question is why we > cannot allow plpgsql reserved keywords in recfilds? > > There should not be any collisions. Isn't there a better solution to > modify plpgsql_yylex instead and allow all keywords after '.' ? Sure. It > will be more invasive. > Is there some description of what keywords should be reserved? If I remember correctly, the scanner was changed more times, and maybe more reserved keywords are not necessary. Regards Pavel > Regards > > Pavel > > > > >> This is v19 material at this point, so I'll stick it on the CF queue. >> >> regards, tom lane >> >> [1] >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/18693-65968418890877b4%40postgresql.org >> >>
