From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Making OFF unreserved |
Date: | 2010-10-22 14:47:08 |
Message-ID: | 4CC1A3EC.20504@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22.10.2010 16:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> OFF is a reserved keyword. It's not a reserved keyword in the SQL spec,
>> and it's not hard to see people using off as a variable or column name,
>> so it would be nice to relax that.
>
> While I can see the value of doing something about that, this seems
> awfully fragile:
>
>> + /*
>> + * OFF is also accepted as a boolean value, but is not listed
>> + * here to avoid making it a reserved keyword. All uses of
>> + * opt_boolean rule also accept a ColId with the same action -
>> + * OFF is handled via that route.
>> + */
>
> The production's correctness now depends on how it's used, and there's
> no way to prevent somebody from misusing it.
>
> I think it'd be better if you were to refactor the grammar so that ColId
> was actually one of the alternatives in this very production (call it
> opt_boolean_or_name, or something like that). Then at least there'd be
> less of a flavor of action-at-a-distance about the assumption that OFF
> was handled in a compatible fashion.
Ah yes, that's much better. Committed that way.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-22 15:19:48 | Re: crash in plancache with subtransactions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-22 14:30:34 | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |