From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Tatsuo Ishii" <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |
Date: | 2008-09-17 10:29:04 |
Message-ID: | 162867790809170329l68cebce8gb3f6d412cb317258@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/9/17 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>>> Do we really have to make RECURSIVE a fully reserved keyword?
>
>> According to the standard, RECURSIVE is a reserved keyword, I believe.
>
> Sure, but our general rule is to make keywords no more reserved than
> is absolutely necessary to make the bison grammar unambiguous. I
> haven't tested, but I'm thinking that if WITH is fully reserved then
> RECURSIVE shouldn't have to be.
I am not sure, if these rule is good. Somebody who develop on
postgresql should have a problems when they will be port to other
databases in future. Reserved words in standards should be respected.
regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-17 10:32:29 | Re: text search patch status update? |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-17 08:31:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery |