On 22.02.2011 16:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
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?
If we want to change OUTER, we should just do it now. If not, I don't
see a TODO here.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
