Tom Lane wrote:
> Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> writes:
>> The real question to ask ourselves is, if Eric Ridge is willing to do all the
>> work to implement this feature, and the code quality is up to the community
>> standards and doesn't break anything else, then will the code be accepted?
>
> It's entirely possible that it will get bounced on standards-compliance
> grounds. In particular, I don't think it's acceptable to introduce a
> new reserved keyword for this --- that would fall under the "fails to
> not break anything else" category.
>
> regards, tom lane
Well then we come up with a (SQL-level) syntax for the feature that doesn't
introduce new reserved keywords.
As I said before, the important thing is to have the feature, and that the exact
syntax is the main point to discuss.
Postgres already has a number of syntactic features that aren't in the SQL
standard and coexist, and so we add one of those.
-- Darren Duncan
