Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "'pgsql-sql@postgresql.org'" <pgsql-sql@postgreSQL.org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2000-02-29T17:19:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > If not, I'd vote for pulling it out. That's a heck of a poor word to > > > reserve. > > I am afraid of lots of user complaints, even if we had not already used > > TEMP. > > OK, but we've already got "user complaints" about TEMP being a > reserved word, so that part seems to balance out. There is apparently > no basis in published standards for TEMP being a reserved word. And > btw it is not currently documented as a reserved word in > syntax.sgml... OK, I certainly didn't look at the standard to when I implemented TEMP tables. In fact, I was surprised it worked considering it is just a hack on the cache code. Let's forget I made a mistake, and consider how many people are going to think they should use TEMP and how many TEMPORARY. I personally would guess TEMP and never TEMPORARY. I wonder if others would too. So are we willing to field questions from people trying to use TEMP tables and trying TEMP and not TEMPORARY. I realize the restriction on a field called TEMP, but we don't get those very often. How many people are going to guess TEMP and not TEMPORARY? Of course, as a Unix guy, I may have guessed TMP too. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026