Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Tom> I wonder if you've tried hard enough to avoid reserving the keyword.
> GROUP BY cube(a,b) is currently legal syntax and means something completely
> incompatible to what the spec requires.
Well, if there are any extant applications that use that exact phrasing,
they're going to be broken in any case. That does not mean that we have
to break every other appearance of "cube". I think that special-casing
appearances of cube(...) in GROUP BY lists might be a feasible approach.
Basically, I'm afraid that unilaterally renaming cube is going to break
enough applications that there will be more people who flat out don't
want this patch than there will be who get benefit from it, and we end
up voting to revert the feature altogether. If you'd like to take that
risk then feel free to charge full steam ahead, but don't say you were
not warned. And don't bother arguing that CUBE is reserved according to
the standard, because that will not make one damn bit of difference
to the people who will be unhappy.
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
