| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh |
| Date: | 2000-02-29 14:57:56 |
| Message-ID: | 28927.951836276@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
>>>> If not, I'd vote for pulling it out. That's a heck of a poor word to
>>>> reserve.
>> I am afraid of lots of user complaints, even if we had not already used
>> TEMP.
> OK, but we've already got "user complaints" about TEMP being a
> reserved word, so that part seems to balance out. There is apparently
> no basis in published standards for TEMP being a reserved word. And
> btw it is not currently documented as a reserved word in
> syntax.sgml...
The real problem is not that we accept TEMP as a synonym for TEMPORARY;
it is that we treat TEMP as a reserved word. What are the chances that
we could make it a member of the ColId list? I am thinking that
"... INTO TEMP temp" is *not* ambiguous given one token lookahead...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-29 14:59:17 | Re: [HACKERS] interesting observatation regarding views and V7.0 |
| Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2000-02-29 14:56:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-29 16:09:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh |
| Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2000-02-29 14:35:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh |