| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Updatable views/with check option parsing |
| Date: | 2006-05-27 13:56:18 |
| Message-ID: | 22757.1148738178@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> I think we should go on and do promote WITH to a reserved keyword now
> because eventually we have to do it anyway.
> It is needed for recursive queries as well.
I'm unconvinced. Recursive queries have WITH at the front, not the
back, so the parsing issues are entirely different.
If we do find that, we can easily adjust this code to simplify the
filter function at that time. But I don't agree with reserving words
just because we might need them for patches that don't exist yet.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-27 14:12:11 | Re: Inefficient bytea escaping? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-05-27 12:56:44 | Re: Inserting Picture to Bytea |