Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Dean Rasheed's message of mar oct 26 15:46:56 -0300 2010:
>> Well ELEMENT is a reserved keyword in SQL:2008, to support multisets,
>> so if we ever supported that feature...
> Hah!
Hmmm ... I dug through SQL:2008, and so far as I can find, the only use
of ELEMENT as a keyword is for <multiset element reference>, which
is defined as "return the sole element of a multiset of one element":
<multiset element reference> ::= ELEMENT <left paren> <multiset value
expression> <right paren>
This is stated to be equivalent to
( SELECT M.E FROM UNNEST (mve) AS M(E) )
AFAICS, if we were to implement this, we'd do it as an ordinary function
named element(), just like unnest() is an ordinary function in our
implementation. Reserving a common word for as tiny of a notational
savings as this would be stupid.
Of course, it's possible that in future versions the committee might
extend ELEMENT() in ways that we can't duplicate as a simple function.
But that's all hypothetical --- you could as well argue that they might
decide to reserve any other word, too.
But ... having said all that, I have to agree that ELEMENT seems
preferable to LABEL if we ignore micro-considerations of parser
efficiency --- I still think LABEL is a pretty poor choice of word
here. Personally I'd still take VALUE as being my first choice though.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
