Tom Lane wrote:
Darren Duncan <dar...@darrenduncan.net> writes:
The real question to ask ourselves is, if Eric Ridge is willing to do all the
work to implement this feature, and the code quality is up to the community
standards and doesn't break anything else, then will the code be accepted?
It's entirely possible that it will get bounced on standards-compliance
grounds. In particular, I don't think it's acceptable to introduce a
new reserved keyword for this --- that would fall under the "fails to
not break anything else" category.
regards, tom lane
Well then we come up with a (SQL-level) syntax for the feature that doesn't
introduce new reserved keywords.
As I said before, the important thing is to have the feature, and that the exact
syntax is the main point to discuss.
Postgres already has a number of syntactic features that aren't in the SQL
standard and coexist, and so we add one of those.
-- Darren Duncan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
