Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the moment, lie about WITH's status in the table so it will still get
quoted --- this is because of the expectation that WITH will become reserved
when the SQL recursive-queries patch gets done.
Out of curiosity I'm checking what consequences some other
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the moment, lie about WITH's status in the table so it will still get
quoted --- this is because of the expectation that WITH will become reserved
when the SQL recursive-queries patch gets done.
Out of curiosity
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the moment, lie about WITH's status in the table so it will still get
quoted --- this is because of the expectation that WITH will become reserved
when the SQL recursive-queries patch gets done.
Out of curiosity
Gregory Stark wrote:
I'm thinking it may make sense to lie about all of these in quote_identifier
so that someone who upgrades from 8.2 to 8.3 can then upgrade to 8.4. If we
add reserved words in one step then there's no way to upgrade except to rename
things before dumping. Any comments?
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Won't pg_dump quote the keywords it knows its postgres
version will need quoted? We can't expect it to have knowledge of future
requirements for quoting, unless someone really does invent time travel
(in which case someone could just go
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gregory Stark wrote:
I'm thinking it may make sense to lie about all of these in quote_identifier
so that someone who upgrades from 8.2 to 8.3 can then upgrade to 8.4. If we
add reserved words in one step then there's no way to upgrade except to
Gregory Stark wrote:
It may still be worth telling one version of Postgres about anticipated
keywords prior to a release which adds them so that people who don't follow
instructions and try a dump generated with an old pg_dump have a fighting
chance. Besides, what's a person to do if they have
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah. I'm disinclined to pre-emptively quote things for pie-in-the-sky
patches. WITH is already a grammar keyword, so it's not a big deal to
tweak things to quote it, but adding a dozen keywords that have zero
functionality in the grammar is another thing
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the fact that this particular form of the grammar requires
reserving the keywords does not prove that there is no way to have the
features without that. I'd want to see us try a little harder first.
At least
