Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbVrE-0000Oh-Gn for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:16:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbVrE-0003ri-3c for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:16:40 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbVpn-0000nR-Jx for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:15:11 +0000 Received: from 173-164-140-181-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.164.140.181] helo=fetter.org) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cbVpk-0001pR-2Y for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:15:11 +0000 Received: by fetter.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9065FE06C6; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:15:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:15:02 -0800 From: David Fetter To: Tom Lane Cc: Robert Haas , Pantelis Theodosiou , Joel Jacobson , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: Idea on how to simplify comparing two sets Message-ID: <20170208171502.GA10277@fetter.org> References: <2580.1486570976@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2580.1486570976@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:22:56AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Pantelis Theodosiou wrote: > >> I'm not advocating it but I don't see how introducing new SQL keywords > >> breaks backwards compatibility. > > > It does at least a little bit. > > Yes. I think a new set-operation keyword would inevitably have to > be fully reserved --- UNION, INTERSECT, and EXCEPT all are --- which > means that you'd break every application that has used that word as > a table, column, or function name. I've long wanted a SYMMETRIC DIFFERENCE join type, that being the only elementary set operation not included in join types, but nobody at the SQL standards committee seems to have cared enough to help. > Generally speaking, we try very darn hard not to introduce new > reserved words that are not called out as reserved in the SQL > standard. (And even for those, we've sometimes made the grammar > jump through hoops so as not to reserve a word that we didn't > reserve previously.) We just never know what new keywords the standards committee will dream up, or what silliness they'll introduce in the grammar :/ Best, David. -- David Fetter http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers