db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rick Hillegas (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (DERBY-3256) Derby's reserved keyword list does not agree with either the SQL 92 or SQL 2003 standards
Date Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:53:58 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3256?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13509851#comment-13509851
] 

Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-3256:
--------------------------------------

Hi Dag,

This patch looks good to me. It seems to do the right thing. The following query returns a
reasonable error message...

select * from table(syscs_diag.derby_keywords('foo')) t order by keyword;
ERROR 38000: The exception 'java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException' was thrown while
evaluating an expression.
ERROR XJ001: Java exception: ': java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException'.
ERROR XJ081: Invalid value 'FOO' passed as parameter 'TYPE' to method 'SYSCS_DIAG.DERBY_KEYWORDS'

...and a quick spot check of the reserved and unreserved lists indicates that the vti is correctly
reporting which keywords are reserved and which aren't.

I think this is a reasonable addition to Derby's collection of diagnostic vtis. I say +1 to
this solution. Since the full regression tests passed cleanly, I say go ahead and commit this
patch and open an issue to document this new vti.

Thanks,
-Rick

                
> Derby's reserved keyword list does not agree with either the SQL 92 or SQL 2003 standards
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-3256
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3256
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions: 10.3.1.4
>            Reporter: Rick Hillegas
>              Labels: derby_triage10_10
>         Attachments: derbykeywords-1.diff, derbykeywords-1.stat, keywords.tar
>
>
> According to the comments in sqlgrammar.jj, Derby's understanding of reserved vs. non-reserved
keywords is supposed to be based on SQL 92. However, Derby has 8 reserved keywords which are
not part of the SQL 92 list of reserved keywords. The SQL 2003 spec moved many of the SQL
92 reserved keywords to the non-reserved list. Derby has 55 reserved keywords which are not
part of the SQL 2003 list. 42 of Derby's reserved keywords are in the SQL 2003 list of non-reserved
keywords.
> The reserved keywords create migration problems when moving applications from other databases
to Derby. We should consider whether there is any reason that Derby should have more reserved
keywords than appear in the SQL 2003 standard.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message