| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Todd A(dot) Cook" <tcook(at)blackducksoftware(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Is "query" a reserved word in 8.3 plpgsql? |
| Date: | 2007-11-10 00:07:17 |
| Message-ID: | 6089.1194653237@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Nov 9, 2007 5:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> [ thinks for a bit... ] It might be possible to get rid of the keyword
>> and have RETURN QUERY be recognized by an ad-hoc strcmp test, much like
>> the various direction keywords in FETCH have been handled without making
>> them real keywords. It'd be a bit uglier but it'd avoid making QUERY
>> be effectively a reserved word.
> It's not uncommon to have auditing triggers store things in tables
> with fields named query in them. I know I have a few places that do
> this...
It turned out to be a very easy change, so it's done: QUERY isn't a
reserved word anymore.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rajarshi Guha | 2007-11-10 00:12:07 | looping over the rows in a table |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2007-11-09 23:43:43 | Re: Is "query" a reserved word in 8.3 plpgsql? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-11-10 00:12:24 | Re: Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-10 00:02:17 | Re: Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto |