Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh - Mailing list pgsql-sql

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh
Date
Msg-id 28927.951836276@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
List pgsql-sql
>>>> If not, I'd vote for pulling it out.  That's a heck of a poor word to
>>>> reserve.
>> I am afraid of lots of user complaints, even if we had not already used
>> TEMP.

> OK, but we've already got "user complaints" about TEMP being a
> reserved word, so that part seems to balance out. There is apparently
> no basis in published standards for TEMP being a reserved word. And
> btw it is not currently documented as a reserved word in
> syntax.sgml...

The real problem is not that we accept TEMP as a synonym for TEMPORARY;
it is that we treat TEMP as a reserved word.  What are the chances that
we could make it a member of the ColId list?  I am thinking that
"... INTO TEMP temp" is *not* ambiguous given one token lookahead...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-sql by date:

Previous
From: Don Baccus
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh