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