Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Or maybe they really don't give a damn about breaking >> applications every time they invent a new reserved word? > > I think this is the obvious conclusion. In the standard the reserved > words are pretty explicitly reserved and not legal column names, no? > > I think their model is that applications work with a certain version > of SQL and they're not expected to work with a new version without > extensive updating.
IMO it is insanity to write an application of any significant complexity without a data abstraction layer sitting on a data access layer, and it is silly to write such layers which are intended to interface to SQL in a portable way without quoting *all* identifiers sent to the server. As a developer, new reserved words never bothered me in the slightest. At Wisconsin Courts the most heavily used table has been called "Case" since 1989, and the table to hold a row for each paper document printed to pay someone is called "Check". No need to change the names just because SQL started using those words for new language features after we had the tables. And there is no reason to assume that any particular word won't become reserved in the future. I think the most likely explanation is not that they don't mind breaking applications, but that they don't understand that there are significant numbers of people who choose to write code in a fashion which leaves them vulnerable to breakage when new reserved words are added. Being closer to the wide variety of users we know that there are many such people out there, and we try to look after them as best we can; which is entirely appropriate. -- Kevin Grittner EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers