2010/8/9 Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu>: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:02 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: >>> I am working on Grouping Sets support. The first issue is "cube" >>> keyword. Contrib module "cube" define a few functions "cube". So if we >>> want to continue in support this function, then "cube" have to be a >>> unreserved keyword. >> >> The "cube" contrib module was only ever meant to be replaced by the >> real feature, which you're working on, so +1 for dropping everything >> in it that you are not replacing with the one which complies with the >> SQL standard. > > That's not right. The cube contrib module is a kind of vector data > type. It's not related in any way to the SQL CUBE or ROLLUP syntax. > > Personally I think cube is uncommonly used and CUBE an important > enough SQL feature that we should just bite the bullet and kill/rename > the contrib module. Partly that's because I find the name quite > strange and non-intuitive anyways. Something like "vector" or "ntuple" > would be far clearer. > > Doing nasty hacks to make CUBE a non-reserved word doesn't seem > justified by the contrib module. Now conceivably it's a word users > might be using in their schema and that might be a good enough reason > to hack up the grammar -- but it's not like it's a new keyword in SQL > so it shouldn't come as a surprise to users when they get an error. I > think more people are surprised when we *don't* support CUBE than will > be when we start doing so.
ok - with reserved keyword the life is little bit nicer, but still if we remove obsolete columnname(tablename) syntax, we can remeve a few hack in parser - and implement a GROUPING SETS grammar little bit cleaner. Pavel > > -- > greg > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
