Adam Brightwell <adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com> writes: > FWIW, I found the following in the archives:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/15516.1038718...@sss.pgh.pa.us > Now this is from 2002 and it appears it wasn't necessary to change at the > time, but I haven't yet found anything else related (it's a big archive). > Though, as I understand it, PUBLIC is now non-reserved as of SQL:2011 which > might make a compelling argument to leave it as is? The current spec does list PUBLIC as a non-reserved keyword, but it also says (5.4 "Names and identifiers" syntax rules) 20) No <authorization identifier> shall specify "PUBLIC". which, oddly enough, seems to license us to handle "PUBLIC" the way we are doing. OTOH, it lists CURRENT_USER as a reserved word, suggesting that they don't think the same type of hack should be used for that. I'd be inclined to leave the grammar as such alone (ie CURRENT_USER is a keyword, PUBLIC isn't). Changing that has more downside than upside, and we do have justification in the spec for treating the two cases differently. However, I agree that we should fix the subsequent processing so that "current_user" is not confused with CURRENT_USER. 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
