Reserved word: OWNER

On Fri, 13 May 2022 at 13:23, PG Doc comments form
<noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-keywords-appendix.html
Description:

You say it's a non-reserved word, but on this page:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-alterdatabase.html#:~:text=To%20alter%20the%20owner%2C%20you,default%20tablespace%20of%20the%20database.

you clearly use OWNER as a reserved word:

ALTER DATABASE name OWNER TO { new_owner | CURRENT_ROLE | CURRENT_USER |
SESSION_USER }

and 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.

postgres=# CREATE TABLE owner (owner TEXT);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# \d owner
Table "public.owner"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
--------+------+-----------+----------+---------
owner | text | | |

Regards

Thom

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