Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0111141604200.639-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification
Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes: > The keyword classification now looks like: > > TypeFuncId: IDENT plus all fully-unrestricted keywords > > ColId: TypeFuncId plus type-name keywords that might be > followed by '('; these can't be allowed to be > function names, but they can be column names. > > func_name: TypeFuncId plus a few special-case ColLabels > (this list could probably be extended further) > > ColLabel: ColId plus everything else > > Comments? I'd like to apply this, unless there are objections. Is there any reason why ColLabel does not include func_name? All the tokens listed in func_name are also part of ColLabel. > I suppose Peter might complain about having to redo the keyword > tables ;-) The question is, do we want to give the user that much detail, or should we just say TypeFuncId, ColId -> "non-reserved" func_name, ColLabel -> "reserved" (along with the explanations in the text) The plain reserved/non-reserved scheme makes it easier to match up the PostgreSQL column with the SQL9x columns, and hopefully less users will nitpick about whatever details or consider the categories a promise for all future. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: