On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Or maybe they really don't give a damn about breaking
> applications every time they invent a new reserved word?
I think this is the obvious conclusion. In the standard the reserved
words are pretty explicitly reserved and not legal column names, no?
I think their model is that applications work with a certain version
of SQL and they're not expected to work with a new version without
extensive updating.
--
greg
