"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> I'd hate to see it be us that makes life more difficult for
> ppl to make choices because we 'softened restrictions' on reserved words,
> allowing someone to create an app that works great under us, but is now a
> headache to change to someone else's RDBMSs as a result ...
Well, I could see making a "strict SQL" mode that rejects *all* PG-isms,
but in the absence of such a thing I don't see much value to taking a
hard line just on the point of disallowing keywords as field names.
That seems unlikely to be anyone's worst porting headache ...
Your question is valid though: do other RDBMSs take a hard line on
how reserved keywords are? I dunno.
regards, tom lane