| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division] |
| Date: | 2013-06-27 14:12:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20419.1372342362@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane said:
>>> If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we make
>>> OVER less reserved?
> Isn't dangerous do OVER unreserved keyword??
How so? The worst-case scenario is that we find we have to make it more
reserved again in some future release, as a consequence of some new
randomness from the SQL committee. That will just return us to the
status quo, in which anybody who uses OVER as a table/column name has
been broken since about 8.4. Since we still hear of people using
releases as old as 7.2.x, I'm sure there are a few out there who would
still be helped if we could de-reserve OVER again. (Not to mention
people migrating from other systems in which it's not a keyword.)
In any case, the general project policy has been to never make keywords
any more reserved than we absolutely have to. If we didn't care about
this, we wouldn't be bothering with four separate categories of keywords.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-06-27 14:13:10 | Re: refresh materialized view concurrently |
| Previous Message | Robins Tharakan | 2013-06-27 14:12:10 | Re: Add more regression tests for CREATE OPERATOR |