| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)wallace(dot)ece(dot)rice(dot)edu>, "G(dot) Anthony Reina" <reina(at)nsi(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Is "isolation" a restricted word? |
| Date: | 1999-09-14 02:59:01 |
| Message-ID: | 37DDB9F5.9CCBF433@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > This table had no problems previously; has the word isolation been used
> > > somewhere else as a SQL word?
> > And it's mentioned in the HISTORY file as part of the MVCC
> > changes. They're a couple of these 'gotcha' words that are part of
> > the SQL standard, but hadn't yet been implemented before 6.5 that have
> > tripped up people.
btw, it *is* documented as an SQL92 reserved word and a Postgres
reserved word in the big docs in the chapter on "Syntax".
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Zeugswetter | 1999-09-14 07:44:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for user-defined C-language functions |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-09-14 02:26:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Is "isolation" a restricted word? |