On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>> Not really. As pointed out downthread, you can't distinguish "cube"
>> from CUBE. We could fix that with a big enough hammer, of course, but
>> it would be a mighty big hammer.
>
> I'm not convinced of that; I think some creative hackery in the grammar
> might be able to deal with this. It would be a bit ugly, for sure, but
> if it works it would be a localized fix.
Well, I have no idea how to do that. I think the only way you'd be
able to is if you make productions like ColId and ColLabel return
something different for a keyword than they do for an IDENT. And
that's not going to be a localized change. If you've got another
proposal, I'm all ears...
> Meanwhile, I don't believe
> that it's going to be possible to rename the cube extension in any way
> that's even remotely acceptable for its users ("remotely acceptable"
> here means "pg_upgrade works", never mind what's going to be needed
> to fix their applications).
>
> So the proposal you are pushing is going
> to result in seriously teeing off some fraction of our userbase;
> and the argument why that would be acceptable seems to boil down to
> "I think there are few enough of them that we don't have to care"
> (an opinion based on little evidence IMO).
The only hard statistics I am aware of are from Heroku. Peter
Geoghegan was kind enough to find me the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT2gzzbyWpw
At around 8 minutes, he shows utilization statistics for cube at
around 1% across their install base. That's higher than I would have
guessed, so, eh, shows what I know. In any case, I'm not so much
advocating not caring at all as confining the level of caring to what
can be done without moving the earth.
> I think it's worth investing
> some work, and perhaps accepting some ugly code, to try to avoid that.
I can accept ugly code, but I feel strongly that we shouldn't accept
ugly semantics. Forcing cube to get out of the way may not be pretty,
but I think it will be much worse if we violate the rule that quoting
a keyword strips it of its special meaning; or the rule that there are
four kinds of keywords and, if a keyword of a particular class is
accepted as an identifier in a given context, all other keywords in
that class will also be accepted as identifiers in that context.
Violating those rules could have not-fun-at-all consequences like
needing to pass additional context information to ruleutils.c's
quote_identifier() function, or not being able to dump and restore a
query from an older version even with --quote-all-identifiers.
Renaming the cube type will suck for people who are using it; but it
will only have to be done once; weird stuff like the above will be
with us forever.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
