Message-ID: <3A3B2310.EB5C3DEE@tm.ee>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:08:48 +0200
From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SQL keywords
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0012160010410.1319-100000@peter.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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