On 05/01/2013 04:26 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:53:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> adrian.vondendrie...@credativ.de writes: >>> [ recent pg_dump fails against an 8.4 server if "old" is used as a >>> name ] >> >> Yeah. The reason for this is that "old" was considered a reserved >> word in 8.4 and before, but since 9.0 it is not reserved (indeed it >> isn't a keyword at all anymore), so 9.0 and later pg_dump don't >> think they need to quote it in commands. > > According to SQL:2003 and SQL:2008 (and the draft standard, if that > matters) in section 5.2 of Foundation, both NEW and OLD are reserved > words, so we're going to need to re-reserve them to comply.
erm? I don't really see why we have any need to reserve something _on purpose_ when there is no technical reason to do so... > > Sadly, this will cause problems for people who have tables with those > names, but we've introduced incompatibilities (in 8.3, e.g.) that hit > a much bigger part of our user base much harder than this. When we do > re-reserve, we'll need to come up with a migration path. so why again do we want to create an(other) incompatibility hazard? Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
