| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: NUMERIC key word |
| Date: | 2008-02-10 23:37:12 |
| Message-ID: | 11544.1202686632@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 13:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The reason it was kept was to override the search path --- unqualified
>> NUMERIC will always be taken as pg_catalog.numeric even if you have some
>> other type "numeric" in front of it.
> It should be possible to implement this behavior without requiring
> NUMERIC to be a keyword, though.
Perhaps we could find some other, even uglier kludge ... I doubt it
would be an improvement. Is there any particular reason NUMERIC
*shouldn't* be a keyword? It's called out as a <reserved word> by
the spec, after all. (In fact, I seem to recall that it was exactly
that point that made us decide that the implicit conversion to
pg_catalog.numeric was appropriate.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hans-Juergen Schoenig | 2008-02-11 08:29:39 | Endless recovery |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2008-02-10 22:42:20 | Re: NUMERIC key word |