On Wed, 01 Mar 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:
> > I vote for the SQL92 TEMPORARY. Let's not add a keyword that is non-standard
> > just because one or another commercial database makes use of it,
>
> You're missing the point: we are not talking about *adding* a keyword,
> we're talking about *removing* one that we've already supported for
> a year or so. That changes matters considerably, IMHO.
>
> I have in fact been able to make a conflict-free grammar in which TEMP
> is accepted but not reserved. It requires a certain amount of
> redundancy in the productions (see below), but I think this is a
> worthwhile tradeoff for not breaking existing user code.
>
> Shall I commit this?
Is there not also the possibility of making this a configure-time option?
./configure --temporary-table=TEMPORARY # or TEMP as you wish
Default to TEMPORARY in accord with SQL 92.
--
Sincerely etc.,
NAME Christopher Sawtell - Support Engineer - iOpen Technologies Ltd.CELL PHONE 021 257 4451ICQ UIN
45863470EMAIL chris @ iopen . co . nz, csawtell @ xtra . co . nzCNOTES
ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/languages/C/tutorials/sawtell_C.tar.gz
---->>> Please refrain from using HTML attachments in e-mails to me. <<<----
