Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?

2010/8/9 Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:02 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>>> I am working on Grouping Sets support. The first issue is "cube"
>>> keyword. Contrib module "cube" define a few functions "cube". So if we
>>> want to continue in support this function, then "cube" have to be a
>>> unreserved keyword.
>>
>> The "cube" contrib module was only ever meant to be replaced by the
>> real feature, which you're working on, so +1 for dropping everything
>> in it that you are not replacing with the one which complies with the
>> SQL standard.
>
> That's not right. The cube contrib module is a kind of vector data
> type. It's not related in any way to the SQL CUBE or ROLLUP syntax.
>
> Personally I think cube is uncommonly used and CUBE an important
> enough SQL feature that we should just bite the bullet and kill/rename
> the contrib module. Partly that's because I find the name quite
> strange and non-intuitive anyways. Something like "vector" or "ntuple"
> would be far clearer.
>
> Doing nasty hacks to make CUBE a non-reserved word doesn't seem
> justified by the contrib module. Now conceivably it's a word users
> might be using in their schema and that might be a good enough reason
> to hack up the grammar -- but it's not like it's a new keyword in SQL
> so it shouldn't come as a surprise to users when they get an error. I
> think more people are surprised when we *don't* support CUBE than will
> be when we start doing so.

ok - with reserved keyword the life is little bit nicer, but still if
we remove obsolete columnname(tablename) syntax, we can remeve a few
hack in parser - and implement a GROUPING SETS grammar little bit
cleaner.

Pavel

>
> --
> greg
>