pg.ddx.io pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedSQL92 compliance
7+ messages / 5 participants
[nested] [flat]
* SQL92 compliance
@ 2006-08-23 01:40 Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
2006-08-23 01:54 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>
2006-08-23 16:11 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Daniel CAUNE @ 2006-08-23 01:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
Hi,
Is AS in "SELECT my_column AS my_name FROM my_table" mandatory to be SQL92
compliant?
PostgreSQL requires this keyword by default when defining alias, which might
be good thing. I mean, I would prefer being notified from a syntax error
than spending a couple of hours wondering why a client application, at the
end of a several data marshalling processes, doesn't get the right data...
For instance MySQL doesn't require it and sometimes that sucks:
SELECT my_column1
my_column2,
my_column3
FROM my_table
Regards,
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL92 compliance
2006-08-23 01:40 SQL92 compliance Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
@ 2006-08-23 01:54 ` Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Glaesemann @ 2006-08-23 01:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:40 , Daniel CAUNE wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is AS in "SELECT my_column AS my_name FROM my_table" mandatory to
> be SQL92
> compliant?
You can find this in the documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-select.html#AEN48391
> The AS Key Word
>
> In the SQL standard, the optional key word AS is just noise and can
> be omitted without affecting the meaning. The PostgreSQL parser
> requires this key word when renaming output columns because the
> type extensibility features lead to parsing ambiguities without it.
> AS is optional in FROM items, however.
Hope this helps.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL92 compliance
2006-08-23 01:40 SQL92 compliance Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
@ 2006-08-23 16:11 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2006-08-23 17:40 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2006-08-23 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql; +Cc: Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 03:40 schrieb Daniel CAUNE:
> Is AS in "SELECT my_column AS my_name FROM my_table" mandatory to be SQL92
> compliant?
No. I have a patch at
<http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/select-without-as/select-without-as.patch;
that fixes this at least for 7.4. I don't think it works for newer versions,
but it should give you an idea what is required to get it working.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL92 compliance
2006-08-23 01:40 SQL92 compliance Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
2006-08-23 16:11 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
@ 2006-08-23 17:40 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2006-08-23 18:28 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
2006-08-24 06:42 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2006-08-23 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; +Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 03:40 schrieb Daniel CAUNE:
>> Is AS in "SELECT my_column AS my_name FROM my_table" mandatory to be SQL92
>> compliant?
> No. I have a patch at
> <http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/select-without-as/select-without-as.patch;
> that fixes this at least for 7.4.
I think it's a big stretch to say that that patch fixes it, since it
only allows an AS-less target expression to be c_expr rather than
a_expr as it ought to.
The problem is really insoluble given that we allow user-defined
postfix operators: is "SELECT x ~~ y" meant to be an infix operator
with arguments x and y, or a postfix operator with argument x and
a column label y?
When this has come up in the past, we've always concluded that
compliance with this not-very-well-thought-out detail of the spec
is not worth the price of giving up postfix operators.
Even if we were willing to do that, I think we'd also have to give
up using bison to generate the parser :-( because some constructs
would require more than one-token lookahead.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL92 compliance
2006-08-23 01:40 SQL92 compliance Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
2006-08-23 16:11 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2006-08-23 17:40 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
@ 2006-08-23 18:28 ` Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
2006-08-24 06:43 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Scott Marlowe @ 2006-08-23 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 12:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 03:40 schrieb Daniel CAUNE:
> >> Is AS in "SELECT my_column AS my_name FROM my_table" mandatory to be SQL92
> >> compliant?
>
> > No. I have a patch at
> > <http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/select-without-as/select-without-as.patch;
> > that fixes this at least for 7.4.
>
> I think it's a big stretch to say that that patch fixes it, since it
> only allows an AS-less target expression to be c_expr rather than
> a_expr as it ought to.
>
> The problem is really insoluble given that we allow user-defined
> postfix operators: is "SELECT x ~~ y" meant to be an infix operator
> with arguments x and y, or a postfix operator with argument x and
> a column label y?
>
> When this has come up in the past, we've always concluded that
> compliance with this not-very-well-thought-out detail of the spec
> is not worth the price of giving up postfix operators.
>
> Even if we were willing to do that, I think we'd also have to give
> up using bison to generate the parser :-( because some constructs
> would require more than one-token lookahead.
Would it be possible if we required postfix operators and related to be
inside parens?
select x ~~ y as yabba
OR
select (x ~~ y) yabba
Not that I'd want that. I prefer it the way it is too. Just more of an
intellectual exercise.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL92 compliance
2006-08-23 01:40 SQL92 compliance Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
2006-08-23 16:11 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2006-08-23 17:40 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2006-08-23 18:28 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
@ 2006-08-24 06:43 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2006-08-24 06:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>; +Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Would it be possible if we required postfix operators and related to
> be inside parens?
>
> select x ~~ y as yabba
> OR
> select (x ~~ y) yabba
That's pretty much what you get if you restrict the expression to
c_expr.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: SQL92 compliance
2006-08-23 01:40 SQL92 compliance Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
2006-08-23 16:11 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2006-08-23 17:40 ` Re: SQL92 compliance Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
@ 2006-08-24 06:42 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2006-08-24 06:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think it's a big stretch to say that that patch fixes it, since it
> only allows an AS-less target expression to be c_expr rather than
> a_expr as it ought to.
Well, it works for a useful subset. I remember that some other database
did not *allow* the AS, so there were porting troubles, but I don't
remember the details. I'm just saying that it's doable if it's a
necessity for someone.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-24 06:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-08-23 01:40 SQL92 compliance Daniel CAUNE <d.caune@free.fr>
2006-08-23 01:54 ` Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>
2006-08-23 16:11 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2006-08-23 17:40 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2006-08-23 18:28 ` Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
2006-08-24 06:43 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2006-08-24 06:42 ` 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