Re: pgAggregate problem any function

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.

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  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