On 05/01/2013 04:26 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:53:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Adrian.Vondendriesch@credativ.de writes:
>>> [ recent pg_dump fails against an 8.4 server if "old" is used as a
>>> name ]
>>
>> Yeah. The reason for this is that "old" was considered a reserved
>> word in 8.4 and before, but since 9.0 it is not reserved (indeed it
>> isn't a keyword at all anymore), so 9.0 and later pg_dump don't
>> think they need to quote it in commands.
>
> According to SQL:2003 and SQL:2008 (and the draft standard, if that
> matters) in section 5.2 of Foundation, both NEW and OLD are reserved
> words, so we're going to need to re-reserve them to comply.
erm? I don't really see why we have any need to reserve something _on
purpose_ when there is no technical reason to do so...
>
> Sadly, this will cause problems for people who have tables with those
> names, but we've introduced incompatibilities (in 8.3, e.g.) that hit
> a much bigger part of our user base much harder than this. When we do
> re-reserve, we'll need to come up with a migration path.
so why again do we want to create an(other) incompatibility hazard?
Stefan
