Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
> The only reservation I have (pun not *really* intended ;) is that the
> SQL9x reserved words may continue to impact us into the future, so
> freeing them up now may just postpone the pain until later. That
> probably is not a good enough argument (*I* don't even like it) but any
> extra flexibility we put in now is not guaranteed to last forever...
Of course not, but we might as well do what we can while we can.
One positive point is that (I think) we are pretty close to SQL9x now
on datatype declaration syntax, so if we can make these words unreserved
or less-reserved today, it's not unreasonable to think they might be
able to stay that way indefinitely.
> In either case, having reserved words which are also reserved in the SQL
> standard will not keep folks from using PostgreSQL, and allowing them
> will not be a difference maker in adoption either imho.
No, it won't. I'm mainly doing this to try to minimize the pain of
people porting forward from previous Postgres releases, in which
(some of) these words weren't reserved. That seems a worthwhile
goal to me, even if in the long run they end up absorbing the pain
anyway. Certain pain now vs maybe-or-maybe-not pain later is an
easy tradeoff ;-)
regards, tom lane
