On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am still not sure whether it is okay to move REPEATABLE from
> unreserved to other category. In-fact last weekend I have spent some
> time to see the exact reason for shift/reduce errors and tried some ways
> but didn't find a way to get away with the same. Now I am planning to
> spend some more time on the same probably in next few days and then
> still if I cannot find a way, I will share my findings and then once
> re-review
> the changes made by Petr in last version. I think overall the patch is in
> good shape now although I haven't looked into DDL support part of the
> patch which I thought could be done in a separate patch as well.
That seems like a legitimate concern. We usually try not to make
keywords more reserved in PostgreSQL than they are in the SQL
standard, and REPEATABLE is apparently non-reserved there:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sql-keywords-appendix.html
This also makes "method" an unreserved keyword, which I'm not wild
about either. Adding new keyword doesn't cost *much*, but is this
SQL-mandated syntax or something we created? If the latter, can we
find something to call it that doesn't require new keywords?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company