Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification
Date: 2001-11-16 04:12:24
Message-ID: 22765.1005883944@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Fine with me. I guess I'll wait with the new table a bit yet. ;-)

The coast is clear now ...

I divided the keywords into four mutually exclusive, all inclusive
category lists:
unreserved_keyword
col_name_keyword
func_name_keyword
reserved_keyword
which I trust will not be a problem for your document-generating
script.

ecpg has some finer distinctions but I'm happy to leave those
undocumented.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2001-11-16 04:37:51 Re: [HACKERS] Open Items (was: RE: [HACKERS] Beta going well)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-11-16 03:56:43 ecpg test problem

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2001-11-16 04:37:51 Re: [HACKERS] Open Items (was: RE: [HACKERS] Beta going well)
Previous Message Bill Studenmund 2001-11-16 03:21:23 Re: Patch to add Heimdal kerberos support