Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] prob with aggregate and group by - returns multiplesh

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, "'pgsql-sql@postgresql.org'" <pgsql-sql@postgreSQL.org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2000-02-29T14:57:56Z
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...

The real problem is not that we accept TEMP as a synonym for TEMPORARY;
it is that we treat TEMP as a reserved word.  What are the chances that
we could make it a member of the ColId list?  I am thinking that
"... INTO TEMP temp" is *not* ambiguous given one token lookahead...

			regards, tom lane