From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | "Hiroshi Saito" <saito(at)inetrt(dot)skcapi(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgAggregate problem any function |
Date: | 2003-09-09 11:10:28 |
Message-ID: | 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B83AF21E@mail.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
> Sent: 09 September 2003 11:50
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Hiroshi Saito; pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAggregate problem any function
>
>
> Hm,
>
> looking at the patch and the weird pgsql behaviour documented below I
> doubt that this is the ultimate fix.
> I suspect that
> a) this should be handled in qtIdent()
> b) other keywords might be affected, e.g. 'char'
We looked at this in pga2 (and I think Frank did implement something in
the end). The problem is that there is a huge list of reserved words
that need checking
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/sql-keywords-appendix.html)
90% of which noone is ever likely to name a type or domain after. Is it
worth the overhead of searching the list in every call to qtIdent?
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-09-09 11:15:47 | Re: pgAggregate problem any function |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-09-09 10:50:23 | Re: pgAggregate problem any function |