Re: [HACKERS] Is "query" a reserved word in 8.3 plpgsql?

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!

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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