Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04.10.2010 18:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I wrote:
> >> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >>> Why is OUTER a type_func_name_keyword? The grammar doesn't require that,
> >>> it could as well be unreserved.
> >
> >> Hm, you sure? All the JOIN-related keywords used to need to be at least
> >> that to avoid conflicts, IIRC.
>
> Yes. OUTER is just an optional noise word in LEFT/RIGHT OUTER JOIN.
>
> > Actually, on reflection, it's possible that only JOIN itself really
> > needs that treatment (because it can be followed by a left paren).
> > We might have made the JOIN modifier words the same level for
> > consistency or something. If we can back off both INNER and OUTER
> > to unreserved, it might be worth doing. I'd be a little more worried
> > about reducing LEFT/RIGHT/FULL, even if it works at the moment.
>
> No, can't change INNER, that creates conflicts.
>
> SELECT * FROM pg_class inner JOIN pg_namespace nsp ON nsp.oid =
> relnamespace;
>
> is ambiguous, "inner" could be either an alias name for pg_class or part
> of "INNER JOIN".
>
> I bumped into the OUTER case because we had a test case in the
> EnterpriseDB test suite using OUTER as a PL/pgSQL variable name. It used
> to work, at least in simple cases where you don't try to use "LEFT OUTER
> JOIN", in 8.4 when PL/pgSQL replaced it with $1 in any SQL statements
> before passing them to the backend. But not anymore in 9.0.
It this a TODO?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +