pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedSQL keywords
5+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* SQL keywords
@ 2000-12-15 23:29 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2000-12-15 23:38 ` Re: SQL keywords Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@rice.edu>
2000-12-16 08:08 ` Re: SQL keywords Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2000-12-15 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
The section on SQL keywords in the User's Guide needs some updating.
I figured that I could generate these various lists of reserved and
non-reserved keywords automatically --- and indeed I can!
But now I've got 36 lists of keywords (all the set differences between
SQL92 reserved/non-reserved, SQL99 reserved/non-reserved, PG
reserved/non-reserved (which is a simplification)) -- none of which are
empty (some keywords where dropped from reserved to non-reserved between
SQL92 and 99) -- but that's more than anyone wants to know.
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).
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL keywords
2000-12-15 23:29 SQL keywords Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
@ 2000-12-15 23:38 ` Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@rice.edu>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ross J. Reedstrom @ 2000-12-15 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL keywords
2000-12-15 23:29 SQL keywords Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
@ 2000-12-16 08:08 ` Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
2000-12-16 08:47 ` Re: SQL keywords Emmanuel Charpentier <charpent@bacbuc.dyndns.org>
2000-12-16 18:29 ` Re: SQL keywords Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Hannu Krosing @ 2000-12-16 08:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> The section on SQL keywords in the User's Guide needs some updating.
>
> I figured that I could generate these various lists of reserved and
> non-reserved keywords automatically --- and indeed I can!
>
> But now I've got 36 lists of keywords (all the set differences between
> SQL92 reserved/non-reserved, SQL99 reserved/non-reserved, PG
> reserved/non-reserved (which is a simplification)) -- none of which are
> empty (some keywords where dropped from reserved to non-reserved between
> SQL92 and 99) -- but that's more than anyone wants to know.
>
> 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).
It could be a good thing to have a table of the form
Keyword | PostgreSQL | SQL 92 | SQL 99 |
-----------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
SELECT | Reserved | Reserved | Reserved |
WITH | - | - | Reserved |
IN | Yes | - | Reserved |
...
-----------
Hannu
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL keywords
2000-12-15 23:29 SQL keywords Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2000-12-16 08:08 ` Re: SQL keywords Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
@ 2000-12-16 08:47 ` Emmanuel Charpentier <charpent@bacbuc.dyndns.org>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Emmanuel Charpentier @ 2000-12-16 08:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
Hi !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message d'origine <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Le 12/16/00, à 9:14:16 AM h, hannu@tm.ee (Hannu Krosing) vous a écrit sur
le sujet suivant Re: [DOCS] SQL keywords:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > The section on SQL keywords in the User's Guide needs some updating.
> >
> > I figured that I could generate these various lists of reserved and
> > non-reserved keywords automatically --- and indeed I can!
[ bandwidth savings ... ]
> It could be a good thing to have a table of the form
> Keyword | PostgreSQL | SQL 92 | SQL 99 |
> -----------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
> SELECT | Reserved | Reserved | Reserved |
> WITH | - | - | Reserved |
> IN | Yes | - | Reserved |
Hmmm ...
Better make that
Keyword | Standard | Status |
------------+-----------+---------+
SELECT | SQL92 | Reserved|
SELECT | SQL99 | Reserved|
SELECT | PostgreSQL| Reserved|
WITH | SQL92 | Nope |
WITH | SQL99 | Reserved|
WITH | PostgeSQL | Nope |
IN | SQL92 | Nope |
IN | SQL99 | Reserved|
IN | PostgreSQL| Yep |
This form allows for greater flexibility in query/views building. Obvious
drawback : the primary key is composite.
Any thoughts ?
Emmanuel Charpentier
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL keywords
2000-12-15 23:29 SQL keywords Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2000-12-16 08:08 ` Re: SQL keywords Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
@ 2000-12-16 18:29 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2000-12-16 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Hannu Krosing writes:
> It could be a good thing to have a table of the form
>
> Keyword | PostgreSQL | SQL 92 | SQL 99 |
> -----------+--------------+-------------+-------------+
> SELECT | Reserved | Reserved | Reserved |
> WITH | - | - | Reserved |
> IN | Yes | - | Reserved |
> ...
I like that.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-12-16 18:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-12-15 23:29 SQL keywords Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2000-12-15 23:38 ` Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@rice.edu>
2000-12-16 08:08 ` Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
2000-12-16 08:47 ` Emmanuel Charpentier <charpent@bacbuc.dyndns.org>
2000-12-16 18:29 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox