2008/9/17 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Do we really have to make RECURSIVE a fully reserved keyword? > >> According to the standard, RECURSIVE is a reserved keyword, I believe. > > Sure, but our general rule is to make keywords no more reserved than > is absolutely necessary to make the bison grammar unambiguous. I > haven't tested, but I'm thinking that if WITH is fully reserved then > RECURSIVE shouldn't have to be.
I am not sure, if these rule is good. Somebody who develop on postgresql should have a problems when they will be port to other databases in future. Reserved words in standards should be respected. regards Pavel Stehule > > regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
