Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #8128: pg_dump (>= 9.1) failed while dumping a scheme named "old" from PostgreSQL 8.4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Adrian(dot)Vondendriesch(at)credativ(dot)de, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #8128: pg_dump (>= 9.1) failed while dumping a scheme named "old" from PostgreSQL 8.4
Date: 2013-05-01 15:12:28
Message-ID: 3523.1367421148@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> According to SQL:2003 and SQL:2008 (and the draft standard, if that
> matters) in section 5.2 of Foundation, both NEW and OLD are reserved
> words, so we're going to need to re-reserve them to comply.

We don't and won't. There are very many other keywords that are less
reserved in Postgres than in the spec; this is a good thing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stefan de Konink 2013-05-01 15:44:54 Re: [BUGS] BUG #8130: Hashjoin still gives issues
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-05-01 15:10:52 Re: BUG #8130: Hashjoin still gives issues

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-05-01 15:29:16 Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2013-05-01 14:37:40 Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #8128: pg_dump (>= 9.1) failed while dumping a scheme named "old" from PostgreSQL 8.4