SQL keywords

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.

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

Hi !

Message d'origine <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Le 12/16/00, � 9:14:16 AM h, hannu@tm.ee (Hannu Krosing) vous a �crit 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

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/