On 2020-May-20, Tom Lane wrote:
> I too failed to save the results of some experimentation, but I'd
> also poked at the type_func_name_keyword category, and it has a similar
> situation where only about three keywords cause problems if included
> in BareColLabel. So we could possibly get another twenty-ish keywords
> into that set with yet a third new keyword category. But (a) we'd still
> only be at 79% coverage and (b) this is *really* making things messy
> keyword-category-wise. I feel like we'd be better advised to somehow
> treat can-be-bare-col-label as an independent classification.
>
> (I did not look at whether any of the fully-reserved keywords could
> be made safe to use, but it seems likely that at least some of them
> could be, if we accept even more classification mess.)
Would it make sense (and possible) to have a keyword category that is
not disjoint wrt. the others? Maybe that ends up being easier than
a solution that ends up with six or seven categories.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
