Received: from wallace.ece.rice.edu (wallace.ece.rice.edu [128.42.12.154])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBFNba624858
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:37:36 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from reedstrm@rice.edu)
Received: by rice.edu via sendmail from stdin
	id <m1474QM-000LGUC@wallace.ece.rice.edu> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
	for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:38:02 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:38:01 -0600
From: "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SQL keywords
Message-ID: <20001215173801.A32536@rice.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012160010410.1319-100000@peter.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012160010410.1319-100000@peter.localdomain>;
	from peter_e@gmx.net on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:29:16AM +0100
X-Archive-Number: 200012/37
X-Sequence-Number: 84

On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:29:16AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> But does anyone know what they do want to know?
> 
> The list of PostgreSQL reserved words seems to be the only thing I can see
> as definitely essential.  But which is more important:  The list of words
> that are reserved in PG but *not* reserved in SQLxx (i.e., what problems
> can I expect when porting stuff to PG), or the opposite (i.e., what words
> should I avoid when writing portable SQL).

If anyone ever gets around to writing an SQL Flagger (as required for
FIPS 127-2 compliance: the US Federal gov't standard that incorporates
SQL92) they'll need the second list: things in PG not in the standard(s)

Ross
-- 
Open source code is like a natural resource, it's the result of providing
food and sunshine to programmers, and then staying out of their way.
[...] [It] is not going away because it has utility for both the developers 
and users independent of economic motivations.  Jim Flynn, Sunnyvale, Calif.