Thread: Re: [GENERAL] Is "query" a reserved word in 8.3 plpgsql?
"Todd A. Cook" <tcook@blackducksoftware.com> writes:
> I saw the item in the release notes about the new "return query"
> syntax in pl/pgsql, but I didn't see any note about "query" being
> reserved now. Perhaps an explicit mention should be added?
Yeah, I got burnt by that too. I have a bad feeling that that keyword
is going to cause trouble for a lot of people.
[ thinks for a bit... ] It might be possible to get rid of the keyword
and have RETURN QUERY be recognized by an ad-hoc strcmp test, much like
the various direction keywords in FETCH have been handled without making
them real keywords. It'd be a bit uglier but it'd avoid making QUERY
be effectively a reserved word.
regards, tom lane
On Nov 9, 2007 5:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Todd A. Cook" <tcook@blackducksoftware.com> writes: > > I saw the item in the release notes about the new "return query" > > syntax in pl/pgsql, but I didn't see any note about "query" being > > reserved now. Perhaps an explicit mention should be added? > > Yeah, I got burnt by that too. I have a bad feeling that that keyword > is going to cause trouble for a lot of people. > > [ thinks for a bit... ] It might be possible to get rid of the keyword > and have RETURN QUERY be recognized by an ad-hoc strcmp test, much like > the various direction keywords in FETCH have been handled without making > them real keywords. It'd be a bit uglier but it'd avoid making QUERY > be effectively a reserved word. It's not uncommon to have auditing triggers store things in tables with fields named query in them. I know I have a few places that do this... Just sayin'
"Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes:
> On Nov 9, 2007 5:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> [ thinks for a bit... ] It might be possible to get rid of the keyword
>> and have RETURN QUERY be recognized by an ad-hoc strcmp test, much like
>> the various direction keywords in FETCH have been handled without making
>> them real keywords. It'd be a bit uglier but it'd avoid making QUERY
>> be effectively a reserved word.
> It's not uncommon to have auditing triggers store things in tables
> with fields named query in them. I know I have a few places that do
> this...
It turned out to be a very easy change, so it's done: QUERY isn't a
reserved word anymore.
regards, tom lane
On Nov 9, 2007 6:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes: > > On Nov 9, 2007 5:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> [ thinks for a bit... ] It might be possible to get rid of the keyword > >> and have RETURN QUERY be recognized by an ad-hoc strcmp test, much like > >> the various direction keywords in FETCH have been handled without making > >> them real keywords. It'd be a bit uglier but it'd avoid making QUERY > >> be effectively a reserved word. > > > It's not uncommon to have auditing triggers store things in tables > > with fields named query in them. I know I have a few places that do > > this... > > It turned out to be a very easy change, so it's done: QUERY isn't a > reserved word anymore. Thanks!