| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, William ZHANG <uniware(at)zedware(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for updatable views |
| Date: | 2006-03-14 08:18:51 |
| Message-ID: | 44167C6B.2070809@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Worst case is we promote WITH to a fully reserved word. While I don't
>normally care for doing that, it *is* a reserved word per SQL99, and
>offhand I don't see likely scenarios for someone using "with" as a table
>or column or function name. (Anyone know of a language in which "with"
>is a noun or verb?)
>
>
>
If we eventually support a WITH clause for recursive queries I suspect
we won't have much choice anyway. I could imagine someone using "with"
as a column name, but I can't see how to avoid hurting those people.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-03-14 08:50:22 | Re: log_duration and log_statement |
| Previous Message | William ZHANG | 2006-03-14 07:13:16 | Re: Proposal for updatable views |