Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-May-15, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2019-05-15 11:05:31 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> After eyeballing the giant patch set you sent[1], I think EXEC is a
>>> horrible keyword to use -- IMO it should either be the complete word
>>> EXECUTE, or we should pick some other word. I realize that we do not
>>> want to have different sets of keywords when using the legacy syntax (no
>>> parens) vs. new-style (with parens), but maybe we should just not
>>> support the EXECUTE keyword in the legacy syntax; there's already a
>>> number of options we don't support in the legacy syntax (BUFFERS,
>>> TIMING), so this isn't much of a stretch.
>> That seems too confusing.
> Ok. Are you voting for using EXEC as a keyword to replace ANALYZE?
FWIW, given the conflict against "EXPLAIN EXECUTE prepared_stmt_name",
we should probably just drop the whole idea. It seemed like a great
idea at the time, but it's going to confuse people not just Bison.
This is such a fundamental option that it doesn't make sense to not
have it available in the simplified syntax. It also doesn't make sense
to use different names for it in the simplified and extended syntaxes.
And "EXEC", or other weird spellings, is in the end not an improvement
on "ANALYZE".
So ... never mind that suggestion. Can we get anywhere with the
rest of it?
regards, tom lane
