Re: "value" a reserved word

Tom Lane kirjutas L, 23.11.2002 kell 03:43:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> > I see we just recently made the word "value" reserved:
> > http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/src/backend/parser/keywords.c.diff?r1=1.130&r2=1.131
> > I noticed it because it breaks the contrib/tablefunc regression test. ISTM
> > like this will break quite a few applications.
>
> I'm not thrilled about it either. I wonder whether we could hack up
> something so that domain check constraints parse VALUE as a variable
> name instead of a reserved keyword? Without some such technique I
> think we're kinda stuck, because the spec is perfectly clear about
> how to write domain check constraints.
>
> (And, to be fair, SQL92 is also perfectly clear that VALUE is a reserved
> word; people griping about this won't have a lot of ground to stand on.
> But I agree it'd be worth trying to find an alternative implementation
> that doesn't reserve the keyword.)

I've been playing around just a little in gram.y and I think that we are
paying too high price for keeping some keywords "somewhat reserved".

In light of trying to become fully ISO/ANSI compliant (or even savvy ;)
could we not make a jump at say 7.4 to having the same set of reserved
keywords as SQL92/SQL99 and be done with it?

There is an Estonian proverb about futility of "cutting off a dogs tail
in a small piece at a time" which seems to apply well to postgreSQL
syntax.

---------------
Hannu