On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> No, not really. Past the grammar there is no way to tell concurrently
> from "concurrently", ie, if we did it like that then you couldn't even
> use double quotes to get around it. Don't overthink this: either we
> reserve the word or we don't put in the feature.
Well still in the realm of overthinking.... Is there anything to be
gained by having a class of reserved word which can be used for
columns but not relations? I think most of the conflicts we worry
about are with column names, not table names, and reserving names from
use as index names isn't even a standards violation.
--
greg
