Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28749.1281362672@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes: > Personally I think cube is uncommonly used and CUBE an important > enough SQL feature that we should just bite the bullet and kill/rename > the contrib module. Yeah. It looks to me like CUBE will have to be a type_function_name keyword (but hopefully not fully reserved), which will mean that we can't have a contrib module defining a type by that name. Ergo, rename. > ... Now conceivably it's a word users > might be using in their schema and that might be a good enough reason > to hack up the grammar -- but it's not like it's a new keyword in SQL > so it shouldn't come as a surprise to users when they get an error. As long as we can avoid making it fully reserved, tables/columns named "cube" will still work, so the damage should be limited. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: