On 01/04/15 17:52, Robert Haas wrote:
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
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:


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?

REPEATABLE is mandated by standard. I did try for quite some time to make it unreserved but was not successful (I can only make it unreserved if I make it mandatory but that's not a solution). I haven't been in fact even able to find out what it actually conflicts with...

METHOD is something I added. I guess we could find a way to name this differently if we really tried. The reason why I picked METHOD was that I already added the same unreserved keyword in the sequence AMs patch and in that one any other name does not really make sense.

 Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to