Eric Ridge <eebbrr@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> In particular, I don't think it's acceptable to introduce a
>> new reserved keyword for this --- that would fall under the "fails to
>> not break anything else" category.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if we choose the word carefully
> (which is why I chose EXCLUDING), I think we're okay? EXCLUDING is
> already defined as an "ordinary key word".
Yeah, it's unreserved so it doesn't break use of the same name for
columns or functions. I'm not sure that you can make the syntax work
the way you suggest without bumping up its reserved-ness level.
That's just a gut feeling, I've not tried it ... but the proposed
syntax sure looks a lot like a call to a function named EXCLUDING.
regards, tom lane