From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>
cc: magnus.johan.hedberg@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Reserved word: OWNER
In-reply-to: 
 <CAA-aLv4EJmU2OCPugoknebZDUMXr=cX+tDkKt6Lp47h-kw_1TA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <165242765714.661.4834758786310673627@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAA-aLv4EJmU2OCPugoknebZDUMXr=cX+tDkKt6Lp47h-kw_1TA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>
	message dated "Fri, 13 May 2022 13:53:05 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <638430.1652448801.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 09:33:21 -0400
Message-ID: <638431.1652448801@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/638431.1652448801%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:
> On Fri, 13 May 2022 at 13:23, PG Doc comments form
>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-keywords-appendix.html
>> if I try to use OWNER as a column name in pgAdmin, it is marked blue (ie
>> a reserved word). So which is it?

> That sounds like a PgAdmin issue, and probably because of the way that
> their syntactic highlighting works.  OWNER isn't a reserved word.

Yeah.  It is a keyword, but not a reserved one, meaning it's okay to use
as an identifier.  See the explanatory text at the top of that page.

There are actually four levels of keyword reserved-ness in Postgres,
and a simple highlighted-or-not scheme is not going to capture any of
that nuance.

			regards, tom lane