Tom Lane kirjutas L, 23.11.2002 kell 03:43: > Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I see we just recently made the word "value" reserved: > > >http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/src/backend/parser/keywords.c.diff?r1=1.130&r2=1.131 > > I noticed it because it breaks the contrib/tablefunc regression test. ISTM > > like this will break quite a few applications. > > I'm not thrilled about it either. I wonder whether we could hack up > something so that domain check constraints parse VALUE as a variable > name instead of a reserved keyword? Without some such technique I > think we're kinda stuck, because the spec is perfectly clear about > how to write domain check constraints. > > (And, to be fair, SQL92 is also perfectly clear that VALUE is a reserved > word; people griping about this won't have a lot of ground to stand on. > But I agree it'd be worth trying to find an alternative implementation > that doesn't reserve the keyword.)
I've been playing around just a little in gram.y and I think that we are paying too high price for keeping some keywords "somewhat reserved". In light of trying to become fully ISO/ANSI compliant (or even savvy ;) could we not make a jump at say 7.4 to having the same set of reserved keywords as SQL92/SQL99 and be done with it? There is an Estonian proverb about futility of "cutting off a dogs tail in a small piece at a time" which seems to apply well to postgreSQL syntax. --------------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
