Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=buBSW9F3PwEYBpsDzcFSCd_vsLupAXkmBq8f8@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2010/8/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > 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. I am afraid, CUBE and ROLLUP have to be a reserved keyword because as type_function_name is in conflict with func_name ( ... Regards Pavel Stehule > >> ... 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: