Tom Lane wrote:
>Worst case is we promote WITH to a fully reserved word. While I don't
>normally care for doing that, it *is* a reserved word per SQL99, and
>offhand I don't see likely scenarios for someone using "with" as a table
>or column or function name. (Anyone know of a language in which "with"
>is a noun or verb?)
>
>
>
If we eventually support a WITH clause for recursive queries I suspect
we won't have much choice anyway. I could imagine someone using "with"
as a column name, but I can't see how to avoid hurting those people.
cheers
andrew