Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division]

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FILTER for aggregates [was Re: Department of Redundancy Department: makeNode(FuncCall) division]
Date: 2013-06-24 14:31:54
Message-ID: CAM-w4HOdZ=429-mXwhuJ9BdjvUYuPBfWz__dJK7StNKjYd7nDg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Or maybe they really don't give a damn about breaking
> applications every time they invent a new reserved word?

I think this is the obvious conclusion. In the standard the reserved
words are pretty explicitly reserved and not legal column names, no?

I think their model is that applications work with a certain version
of SQL and they're not expected to work with a new version without
extensive updating.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2013-06-24 14:46:51 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-06-24 14:30:32 Re: changeset generation v5-01 - Patches & git tree