On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:53:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
adrian.vondendrie...@credativ.de writes:
[ recent pg_dump fails against an 8.4 server if old is used as a
name ]
Yeah. The reason for this is that old was considered a reserved
word in 8.4 and before, but since 9.0 it is not
On 05/01/2013 04:26 PM, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:53:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
adrian.vondendrie...@credativ.de writes:
[ recent pg_dump fails against an 8.4 server if old is used as a
name ]
Yeah. The reason for this is that old was considered a reserved
word in 8.4
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
According to SQL:2003 and SQL:2008 (and the draft standard, if that
matters) in section 5.2 of Foundation, both NEW and OLD are reserved
words, so we're going to need to re-reserve them to comply.
We don't and won't. There are very many other keywords
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:12:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
According to SQL:2003 and SQL:2008 (and the draft standard, if
that matters) in section 5.2 of Foundation, both NEW and OLD are
reserved words, so we're going to need to re-reserve them to
On 05/01/2013 06:14 PM, David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:12:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
According to SQL:2003 and SQL:2008 (and the draft standard, if
that matters) in section 5.2 of Foundation, both NEW and OLD are
reserved words, so we're
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:12:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
According to SQL:2003 and SQL:2008 (and the draft standard, if
that matters) in section 5.2 of Foundation, both NEW and OLD are
reserved words, so we're going
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This is complete nonsense, because
David's argument is pretty clearly not nonsense. I think they're valid
well reasoned arguments. It's just that the evidence is mixed and on
balance leans towards not unnecessarily reserving
