Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch
Date
Msg-id 162867790809170329l68cebce8gb3f6d412cb317258@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
2008/9/17 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> writes:
>>> Do we really have to make RECURSIVE a fully reserved keyword?
>
>> According to the standard, RECURSIVE is a reserved keyword, I believe.
>
> Sure, but our general rule is to make keywords no more reserved than
> is absolutely necessary to make the bison grammar unambiguous.  I
> haven't tested, but I'm thinking that if WITH is fully reserved then
> RECURSIVE shouldn't have to be.

I am not sure, if these rule is good. Somebody who develop on
postgresql should have a problems when they will be port to other
databases in future. Reserved words in standards should be respected.

regards
Pavel Stehule

>
>                        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
>


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: EXEC_BACKEND
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: text search patch status update?