Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Anyway back to my thoughts about this patch. First of all I see problem
> with the proposed syntax. For this syntax I think TABLES (FUNCTIONS,
> SEQUENCES, etc) would have to be added to keywords which is problematic
> because there are views named tables, sequences, views in
> information_schema so we can't really make them keywords. I have no idea
> how to get around this and I don't see good alternative syntax either.
> This is main and only real problem I have.
Erm, seems like the problem was just me overlooking something in gram.y
(I forgot to add those keywords to unreserved_keyword) so no real
problems, but I'd still like to hear answers to those other questions in
my previous email.
--
Regards
Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS)