From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Todd A(dot) Cook" <tcook(at)blackducksoftware(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Is "query" a reserved word in 8.3 plpgsql? |
Date: | 2007-11-09 23:43:43 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10711091543j263f9495r8b6e12ba618a2557@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 9, 2007 5:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Todd A. Cook" <tcook(at)blackducksoftware(dot)com> writes:
> > I saw the item in the release notes about the new "return query"
> > syntax in pl/pgsql, but I didn't see any note about "query" being
> > reserved now. Perhaps an explicit mention should be added?
>
> Yeah, I got burnt by that too. I have a bad feeling that that keyword
> is going to cause trouble for a lot of people.
>
> [ 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...
Just sayin'
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-10 00:07:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Is "query" a reserved word in 8.3 plpgsql? |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2007-11-09 23:33:15 | Re: [GENERAL] Crosstab Problems |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2007-11-09 23:47:06 | plpgsql: another new reserved word |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-11-09 23:43:35 | Re: Segmentation fault using digest from pg_crypto |