Re: [HACKERS] OUTER keyword

2011-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't see a good reason to change it.  The SQL standard is perfectly >> clear that OUTER is a fully reserved word. > My vote would be to change it. We don't normally reserve keywords > unnecessarily. Well, we don't li

Re: [HACKERS] OUTER keyword

2011-02-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas writes: >> On 22.02.2011 16:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> It this a TODO? > >> If we want to change OUTER, we should just do it now. If not, I don't >> see a TODO here. > > I don't see a good reason to change it.  The SQL stand

Re: [HACKERS] OUTER keyword

2011-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > On 22.02.2011 16:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> It this a TODO? > If we want to change OUTER, we should just do it now. If not, I don't > see a TODO here. I don't see a good reason to change it. The SQL standard is perfectly clear that OUTER is a fully reserved word.

Re: [HACKERS] OUTER keyword

2011-02-22 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 22.02.2011 16:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 04.10.2010 18:23, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: Why is OUTER a type_func_name_keyword? The grammar doesn't require that, it could as well be unreserved. Hm, you sure? All the JOIN-related keywor

Re: [HACKERS] OUTER keyword

2011-02-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04.10.2010 18:23, Tom Lane wrote: > > I wrote: > >> Heikki Linnakangas writes: > >>> Why is OUTER a type_func_name_keyword? The grammar doesn't require that, > >>> it could as well be unreserved. > > > >> Hm, you sure? All the JOIN-related keywords used to need to b

Re: [HACKERS] OUTER keyword

2010-10-05 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 04.10.2010 18:23, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: Why is OUTER a type_func_name_keyword? The grammar doesn't require that, it could as well be unreserved. Hm, you sure? All the JOIN-related keywords used to need to be at least that to avoid conflicts, IIRC. Yes. OU

Re: [HACKERS] OUTER keyword

2010-10-04 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas writes: >> Why is OUTER a type_func_name_keyword? The grammar doesn't require that, >> it could as well be unreserved. > Hm, you sure? All the JOIN-related keywords used to need to be at least > that to avoid conflicts, IIRC. Actually, on reflection, it's possible

Re: [HACKERS] OUTER keyword

2010-10-04 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > Why is OUTER a type_func_name_keyword? The grammar doesn't require that, > it could as well be unreserved. Hm, you sure? All the JOIN-related keywords used to need to be at least that to avoid conflicts, IIRC. regards, tom lane -- Sent via

[HACKERS] OUTER keyword

2010-10-04 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Why is OUTER a type_func_name_keyword? The grammar doesn't require that, it could as well be unreserved. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.po