Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinh=9oscJME2Rgy_bp4U_UKKhW1p9A-Pn=K8kSE@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/8/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes: >>> Personally I think cube is uncommonly used and CUBE an important >>> enough SQL feature that we should just bite the bullet and kill/rename >>> the contrib module. >> >> Yeah. It looks to me like CUBE will have to be a type_function_name >> keyword (but hopefully not fully reserved), which will mean that we >> can't have a contrib module defining a type by that name. Ergo, rename. > > I am afraid, CUBE and ROLLUP have to be a reserved keyword because as > type_function_name is in conflict with func_name ( ... They name to be type_func_keywords, perhaps, but not fully reserved. And they'd still need that treatment anyway. Even if cube(whatever) can't mean "extract a column called cube from table whatever", it can still mean "call a function called cube on a column called whatever". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: