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: [HACKERS] Is "query" a reserved word in 8.3 plpgsql? |
Date: | 2007-11-10 01:14:59 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10711091714y10ca7947qce8d308d95f89fab@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 9, 2007 6:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "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.
Thanks!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2007-11-10 01:16:28 | Re: looping over the rows in a table |
Previous Message | Rajarshi Guha | 2007-11-10 00:12:07 | looping over the rows in a table |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-10 01:51:17 | Re: autovacuum_freeze_max_age |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-10 00:53:32 | Re: plpgsql: another new reserved word |