Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1)

Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1)

Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1)

Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1)

> > >       CONSTRAINTS
> > >       DEFERRABLE
> > >       DEFERRED
> > >       IMMEDIATE
> > >       INITIALLY
> > >       PENDANT
> > >       RESTRICT
>     O.K.  - I was able to add them all to ColId without conflicts
>     for now.  Let's see what happens after adding the syntax  for
>     CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER.

Right. Anything which causes trouble can be demoted to ColLabel.

>     I'm  not  sure which of them are SQL92 or SQL3, at least they
>     are all SQL3 "reserved" words according to the SQL3 draft.

According to my Date and Darwen (which is mostly SQL92), all of these
except "PENDANT" are SQL92 reserved words. PENDANT is not mentioned,
so is presumably an SQL3-ism.

Do you want me to update syntax.sgml?

                    - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1)

Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1)

Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1)