From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Making OFF unreserved |
Date: | 2010-10-22 13:54:47 |
Message-ID: | 21367.1287755687@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> OFF is a reserved keyword. It's not a reserved keyword in the SQL spec,
> and it's not hard to see people using off as a variable or column name,
> so it would be nice to relax that.
While I can see the value of doing something about that, this seems
awfully fragile:
> + /*
> + * OFF is also accepted as a boolean value, but is not listed
> + * here to avoid making it a reserved keyword. All uses of
> + * opt_boolean rule also accept a ColId with the same action -
> + * OFF is handled via that route.
> + */
The production's correctness now depends on how it's used, and there's
no way to prevent somebody from misusing it.
I think it'd be better if you were to refactor the grammar so that ColId
was actually one of the alternatives in this very production (call it
opt_boolean_or_name, or something like that). Then at least there'd be
less of a flavor of action-at-a-distance about the assumption that OFF
was handled in a compatible fashion.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-10-22 14:23:42 | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-10-22 13:43:58 | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |