On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am still not sure whether it is okay to move REPEATABLE from > unreserved to other category. In-fact last weekend I have spent some > time to see the exact reason for shift/reduce errors and tried some ways > but didn't find a way to get away with the same. Now I am planning to > spend some more time on the same probably in next few days and then > still if I cannot find a way, I will share my findings and then once > re-review > the changes made by Petr in last version. I think overall the patch is in > good shape now although I haven't looked into DDL support part of the > patch which I thought could be done in a separate patch as well.
That seems like a legitimate concern. We usually try not to make keywords more reserved in PostgreSQL than they are in the SQL standard, and REPEATABLE is apparently non-reserved there: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sql-keywords-appendix.html This also makes "method" an unreserved keyword, which I'm not wild about either. Adding new keyword doesn't cost *much*, but is this SQL-mandated syntax or something we created? If the latter, can we find something to call it that doesn't require new keywords? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
