| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, George Dau <gedau(at)isa(dot)mim(dot)com(dot)au>, "'pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiples |
| Date: | 2000-02-29 10:54:06 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10002291151270.14457-100000@Svan.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > > Postgres thinks that TEMP is a keyword, so it won't take it as a table
> > > name unless you put quotes around it.
> > This is really an unfortunate case where someone should have read the SQL
> > standard before putting in a feature. The SQL keyword is TEMPORARY, and
> > TEMP is really a popular name for a dummy table.
>
> So why not yank TEMP and require TEMPORARY? Saving an extra 5
> characters of typing is not a good enough reason to keep it imho, and
> if the SQL92 standard requires a particular form why bother extending
> it?
>
> A major release is a good time to adjust syntax to promote
> compliance...
I've been (lightly) bashed in the past for proposing such things (see
END/ABORT) but I'm with you. I think that TEMP may be far too wide-spread
by now, though.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-29 11:14:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-02-29 10:41:20 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-29 11:59:41 | RE: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiples |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-02-29 06:48:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh |