Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification
От | Thomas Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3BEB3F50.19A3B220@fourpalms.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Call for objections: revision of keyword classification (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
> Since we've already seen two complaints about "timestamp" no longer > being an allowed column name in 7.2, I think it's probably time to > make a serious effort at trimming the reserved-word list a little. Cool. The only reservation I have (pun not *really* intended ;) is that the SQL9x reserved words may continue to impact us into the future, so freeing them up now may just postpone the pain until later. That probably is not a good enough argument (*I* don't even like it) but any extra flexibility we put in now is not guaranteed to last forever... In either case, having reserved words which are also reserved in the SQL standard will not keep folks from using PostgreSQL, and allowing them will not be a difference maker in adoption either imho. - Thomas
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: