Re: Sanding down some edge cases for PL/pgSQL reserved words - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Sanding down some edge cases for PL/pgSQL reserved words
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRAqkYD63m82LK5ETMrrZ7-FccVPhqB_yRsz51jrkT2rHw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Sanding down some edge cases for PL/pgSQL reserved words  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi
 

1. AFAICS, there is no real reason for STRICT to be a reserved
rather than unreserved PL/pgSQL keyword, and for that matter not
EXECUTE either.  Making them unreserved does allow some ambiguity,
but I don't think there's any surprises in how that ambiguity
would be resolved; and certainly we've preferred ambiguity over
introducing new reserved keywords in PL/pgSQL before.  I think
these two just escaped that treatment by dint of being ancient.


I checked other reserved keywords and I didn't see any reason to be reserved keywords
for K_TO, K_NOT. 

K_FOREACH, and K_WHILE are reserved probably because are used after opt_loop_label - but it is not necessary

Other keywords are used as some delimiter or as protection against parser's conflicts. 

Regards

Pavel

 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nisha Moond
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical Replication of sequences
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: macos exported symbols list not used for loadable modules