Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > That being said, I don't have much of an opinion, so if you see a > problem, then we can forget it. After all, we would need some kind of a > prefix anyway to avoid conflicting with actual SQL... maybe "\m"? And > that defeats a lot of the purpose.
Yeah, requiring a prefix would make it completely pointless I think. The submitted patch tries to avoid that by only matching syntax that's invalid in Postgres, but that certainly limits how far we can go with it. (And like you, I'm a bit worried about the LOAD case.) The last go-round on this was just a couple months ago: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-11/msg00241.php although I guess that was aimed at a slightly different idea, namely making "show databases" etc actually *work*. This one at least has a level of complication that's more in keeping with the possible gain. The previous discussion started from the idea that only DESCRIBE, SHOW DATABASES/TABLES, and USE were worth worrying about. If we were to agree that we'd go that far and no farther, the potential conflict with SQL syntax would be pretty limited. I have little enough experience with mysql to not want to opine too much on how useful that would be, but it does seem like those are commands I use right away anytime I am using mysql. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
