On Mar 11, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On 11.03.2011 20:59, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> Add missing keywords to gram.y's unreserved_keywords list. >>>> >>>> We really need an automated check for this ... and did VALIDATE really >>>> need to become a keyword at all, rather than picking some other syntax >>>> using existing keywords? >>> >>> I think we ought to try to do something about this, so that VALIDATE >>> doesn't need to become a keyword. >>> >>> How about instead of VALIDATE CONSTRAINT we simply write ALTER >>> CONSTRAINT ... VALID? (Patch attached, passes make check.) >> >> ALTER CONSTRAINT ... VALID sounds like it just marks the constraint as >> valid. "VALIDATE CONSTRAINT" sounds like it scans and checks that the >> constraint is valid. > > Yeah, it's a little awkward, but I think it's still better than adding > another keyword. Any other ideas for wording?
CHECK VALID? Regards, David -- David Christensen End Point Corporation da...@endpoint.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
