Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04.10.2010 18:23, Tom Lane wrote: > > I wrote: > >> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > >>> Why is OUTER a type_func_name_keyword? The grammar doesn't require that, > >>> it could as well be unreserved. > > > >> Hm, you sure? All the JOIN-related keywords used to need to be at least > >> that to avoid conflicts, IIRC. > > Yes. OUTER is just an optional noise word in LEFT/RIGHT OUTER JOIN. > > > Actually, on reflection, it's possible that only JOIN itself really > > needs that treatment (because it can be followed by a left paren). > > We might have made the JOIN modifier words the same level for > > consistency or something. If we can back off both INNER and OUTER > > to unreserved, it might be worth doing. I'd be a little more worried > > about reducing LEFT/RIGHT/FULL, even if it works at the moment. > > No, can't change INNER, that creates conflicts. > > SELECT * FROM pg_class inner JOIN pg_namespace nsp ON nsp.oid = > relnamespace; > > is ambiguous, "inner" could be either an alias name for pg_class or part > of "INNER JOIN". > > I bumped into the OUTER case because we had a test case in the > EnterpriseDB test suite using OUTER as a PL/pgSQL variable name. It used > to work, at least in simple cases where you don't try to use "LEFT OUTER > JOIN", in 8.4 when PL/pgSQL replaced it with $1 in any SQL statements > before passing them to the backend. But not anymore in 9.0.
It this a TODO? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers