Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: 32.97.182.142 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of suresh.thalamati@gmail.com)
Message-ID: <4224EB9C.2050409@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:24:28 -0800
From: Suresh Thalamati <suresh.thalamati@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Overly conservative on reserved words?
References: <4222030C.3010600@apache.org> <42237891.4020407@debrunners.com>
In-Reply-To: <42237891.4020407@debrunners.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Reserving additional words from the second group poses a bigger issue as
>>users' may have databases out there already using these words as
>>identifiers. The smoothest path is probably to give people an indication
>>of which words will need to be reserved at some point and hence should
>>be avoided; it is better for us to do this earlier than later.
>>    
>>
>
>Actually having even keywords defined as reserved by the SQL Standard
>reserved in Derby has caused problems. I recently changed LOCAL not to
>be a reserved word as other databases do not enforce it. We probably
>need some set rules, but reserving because the SQL standard says so it
>not the approach taken by other products.
>
>Dan.
>
>
>  
>

I agree that words should not be reserved when it is not needed. Just 
wondering what should developers
need to do in future if a  SQL standard word  is put into  an 
un-reserved list (warning list)  need to be used
in the future releases ? as it is likely to break an existing 
application on an upgrade.


Thanks
-suresht