| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bear Giles <bgiles(at)coyotesong(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: help with bison |
| Date: | 2002-04-11 04:33:39 |
| Message-ID: | 27985.1018499619@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bear Giles <bgiles(at)coyotesong(dot)com> writes:
>> Yes: if the lexer folds them together then unreserved_keyword can't
>> regenerate the equivalent name properly.
> But if they're synonyms, is that necessary?
If I say
create table foo (temp int);
I will be annoyed if the system decides that the column is named
"temporary". Being synonyms in the SQL grammar does not make them
equivalent when used as plain identifiers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-11 04:35:32 | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-11 04:30:08 | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |