On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 10:02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If you are saying "we should not support the SQL standard with regard
> > to the new reserved words added in SQL:2003", I would understand, but
> > not agree.
> Conformance to the SQL standard is defined such that statements that are 
> specified in the standard should work precisely as specified in the 
> standard.  It does *not* mean that statements that are not defined in 
> the standard should fail to work.  Therefore, adding more reserved key 
> words than necessary does not achieve anything in terms of SQL 
> conformance.

Returning to your original thought, the PostgreSQL reserved word list
and the standard are not the same thing. I accept the core team's
judgement that the two should not be the same, for various reasons.

I have another suggestion on how to allow both to co-exist, which I will
detail later on Hackers.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
      joining column's datatypes do not match

Reply via email to