From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tatsuo Ishii" <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |
Date: | 2008-09-17 12:12:09 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070809170512p64f24064u22a78a6c3a43b103@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I am not sure, if these rule is good. Somebody who develop on
> postgresql should have a problems when they will be port to other
> databases in future. Reserved words in standards should be respected.
I disagree. I have never ported an app written for PostgreSQL to
another database system, and have no plans to start. The fact that
some other database system might barf on a particular bit of SQL is
insufficient reason for PostgreSQL to do the same thing.
If people want to write code that will work on multiple databases,
they should of course avoid using any SQL reserved words for anything
other than their reserved purposes. But there is no reason for the
database system to unilaterally shove that down everyone's throat. It
is very easy to overdo the idea of protecting users from themselves.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-17 12:16:52 | Re: [PATCHES] libpq events patch (with sgml docs) |
Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-09-17 10:50:16 | Re: [PATCHES] libpq events patch (with sgml docs) |