Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I took a look at this and it seems that #3 can be implemented with
> essentially no additional code (the handful of lines I added where
> more than balanced out by some simplifications in ruleutils.c). Of
> course you still don't have to like it. :-)
You're right, I don't. Even if I thought this were a good idea, which
I most definitely do not, the need to add a nonstandard fully-reserved
word is sufficient reason to reject it. (The patch tries to pretend
it's not going to reserve the word, but that only works because you have
carefully changed only one of the five JOIN productions, leading to
bizarrely non-orthogonal syntax.)
regards, tom lane