Is the keyword “ALIAS” actually used?
According to the Postgres documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1, 'ALIAS' is listed as a reserved word, at least for SQL99. Later versions do not show it - suggesting that it has been dropped as a reserved word. When aliasing a table or column one may use 'AS', but I have never seen the word 'ALIAS' used anywhere - not for Postgres, SQL Server or any other RDBMS I have encountered. The Postgres docs do say "the presence of a key word does not indicate the existence of a feature." Is it as simple as that - that someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it? Or is there a case where the word itself is or was actually used (and possibly required) and I simply have never stumbled over it?
postgresql
add a comment |
According to the Postgres documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1, 'ALIAS' is listed as a reserved word, at least for SQL99. Later versions do not show it - suggesting that it has been dropped as a reserved word. When aliasing a table or column one may use 'AS', but I have never seen the word 'ALIAS' used anywhere - not for Postgres, SQL Server or any other RDBMS I have encountered. The Postgres docs do say "the presence of a key word does not indicate the existence of a feature." Is it as simple as that - that someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it? Or is there a case where the word itself is or was actually used (and possibly required) and I simply have never stumbled over it?
postgresql
SQL-92 mentions it as a potential future reserved word. contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt
– Martin Smith
1 hour ago
1
So based on the feedback and research into the older specs (mostly by Evan) it looks like the answer actually is "someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it" (except DB2). The bottom line for me is that it is not reserved now in any of the RDBMS I expect to be using.
– mickeyf
42 mins ago
add a comment |
According to the Postgres documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1, 'ALIAS' is listed as a reserved word, at least for SQL99. Later versions do not show it - suggesting that it has been dropped as a reserved word. When aliasing a table or column one may use 'AS', but I have never seen the word 'ALIAS' used anywhere - not for Postgres, SQL Server or any other RDBMS I have encountered. The Postgres docs do say "the presence of a key word does not indicate the existence of a feature." Is it as simple as that - that someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it? Or is there a case where the word itself is or was actually used (and possibly required) and I simply have never stumbled over it?
postgresql
According to the Postgres documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1, 'ALIAS' is listed as a reserved word, at least for SQL99. Later versions do not show it - suggesting that it has been dropped as a reserved word. When aliasing a table or column one may use 'AS', but I have never seen the word 'ALIAS' used anywhere - not for Postgres, SQL Server or any other RDBMS I have encountered. The Postgres docs do say "the presence of a key word does not indicate the existence of a feature." Is it as simple as that - that someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it? Or is there a case where the word itself is or was actually used (and possibly required) and I simply have never stumbled over it?
postgresql
postgresql
edited 42 mins ago
mickeyf
asked 3 hours ago
mickeyfmickeyf
254138
254138
SQL-92 mentions it as a potential future reserved word. contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt
– Martin Smith
1 hour ago
1
So based on the feedback and research into the older specs (mostly by Evan) it looks like the answer actually is "someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it" (except DB2). The bottom line for me is that it is not reserved now in any of the RDBMS I expect to be using.
– mickeyf
42 mins ago
add a comment |
SQL-92 mentions it as a potential future reserved word. contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt
– Martin Smith
1 hour ago
1
So based on the feedback and research into the older specs (mostly by Evan) it looks like the answer actually is "someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it" (except DB2). The bottom line for me is that it is not reserved now in any of the RDBMS I expect to be using.
– mickeyf
42 mins ago
SQL-92 mentions it as a potential future reserved word. contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt
– Martin Smith
1 hour ago
SQL-92 mentions it as a potential future reserved word. contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt
– Martin Smith
1 hour ago
1
1
So based on the feedback and research into the older specs (mostly by Evan) it looks like the answer actually is "someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it" (except DB2). The bottom line for me is that it is not reserved now in any of the RDBMS I expect to be using.
– mickeyf
42 mins ago
So based on the feedback and research into the older specs (mostly by Evan) it looks like the answer actually is "someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it" (except DB2). The bottom line for me is that it is not reserved now in any of the RDBMS I expect to be using.
– mickeyf
42 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
According to the Postgres (and other) documentation, 'ALIAS' is listed as a reserved word, at least for SQL99.
That's not true. PostgreSQL maintains a list of reserved and non-reserved terms in the appendix. ALIAS is absent from that list. You can verify PostgreSQL does not use ALIAS by checking out the YACC grammar. Even as far back as Postgres95 ALIAS was not a reserved word You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word
- 👍 MySQL does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👍 Oracle does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👎 SQL Server does (in T-SQL) reserve
ALIAS
SQL Standard
In SQL-92,
ALIASwas marked as a<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>.In SQL-99
ALIASwas marked as an "Additional Reserved Word", and added to the list of<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>. Perhaps they reserved the term with the intent to define meaning later, and then withdrew it at a different point. Or, perhaps they reserved the term for vendor defined implementation. PostgreSQL reflected the spec's reservation in the docs, and then removed that reservation with the spec.In SQL-2011,
ALIASis no where to be found and the word "alias" only appears in reference to 'Feature T053, “Explicit aliases for all-fields reference”'
ℹ There is no digitized copy of SQL-86, or SQL-89
postgresql.org/docs/7.3/sql-keywords-appendix.html shows that at least some versions of Postgres did consider it a reserved word. Up through 8.something I believe. I did mention that it appeared to have been dropped as a reserved word in later versions. I did not mention SQL-2011, but older specs.
– mickeyf
2 hours ago
@mickeyf that doc is wrong, perhaps it was never upgraded when Postgres moved from QUEL to SQL ~1994. You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word, github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/…
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
Carrol - I have no reasonable way of checking the accuracy of the documentation. But the same page of the documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1 all indicate that it is a reserved word (but only for SQL99), and they do not omit it from the reserved word list until 9.2. Version 9.1 was released in 2011. So it took them all that time to correct the documentation? I suppose that's at least as plausible as that it was reserved and then 'un-reserved'. I've always had the impression the Postgres was much better than average as far as documentation went. Iconoclast!
– mickeyf
1 hour ago
@mickeyf see my update.
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It is used at least in various flavours of Db2: ALIAS is an object that allows you to specify a different name for another object, like table. It's frequently used to allow references in one schema to objects in another schema without explicitly specifying that schema.
create table SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR (...);
set schema MYSCHEMA;
create alias FOOBAR for SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR;
select * from FOOBAR;
ALIAS is an alias for SYNONYM; the latter concept also exists in Oracle and SQL Server.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f227095%2fis-the-keyword-alias-actually-used%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
According to the Postgres (and other) documentation, 'ALIAS' is listed as a reserved word, at least for SQL99.
That's not true. PostgreSQL maintains a list of reserved and non-reserved terms in the appendix. ALIAS is absent from that list. You can verify PostgreSQL does not use ALIAS by checking out the YACC grammar. Even as far back as Postgres95 ALIAS was not a reserved word You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word
- 👍 MySQL does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👍 Oracle does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👎 SQL Server does (in T-SQL) reserve
ALIAS
SQL Standard
In SQL-92,
ALIASwas marked as a<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>.In SQL-99
ALIASwas marked as an "Additional Reserved Word", and added to the list of<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>. Perhaps they reserved the term with the intent to define meaning later, and then withdrew it at a different point. Or, perhaps they reserved the term for vendor defined implementation. PostgreSQL reflected the spec's reservation in the docs, and then removed that reservation with the spec.In SQL-2011,
ALIASis no where to be found and the word "alias" only appears in reference to 'Feature T053, “Explicit aliases for all-fields reference”'
ℹ There is no digitized copy of SQL-86, or SQL-89
postgresql.org/docs/7.3/sql-keywords-appendix.html shows that at least some versions of Postgres did consider it a reserved word. Up through 8.something I believe. I did mention that it appeared to have been dropped as a reserved word in later versions. I did not mention SQL-2011, but older specs.
– mickeyf
2 hours ago
@mickeyf that doc is wrong, perhaps it was never upgraded when Postgres moved from QUEL to SQL ~1994. You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word, github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/…
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
Carrol - I have no reasonable way of checking the accuracy of the documentation. But the same page of the documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1 all indicate that it is a reserved word (but only for SQL99), and they do not omit it from the reserved word list until 9.2. Version 9.1 was released in 2011. So it took them all that time to correct the documentation? I suppose that's at least as plausible as that it was reserved and then 'un-reserved'. I've always had the impression the Postgres was much better than average as far as documentation went. Iconoclast!
– mickeyf
1 hour ago
@mickeyf see my update.
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
add a comment |
According to the Postgres (and other) documentation, 'ALIAS' is listed as a reserved word, at least for SQL99.
That's not true. PostgreSQL maintains a list of reserved and non-reserved terms in the appendix. ALIAS is absent from that list. You can verify PostgreSQL does not use ALIAS by checking out the YACC grammar. Even as far back as Postgres95 ALIAS was not a reserved word You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word
- 👍 MySQL does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👍 Oracle does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👎 SQL Server does (in T-SQL) reserve
ALIAS
SQL Standard
In SQL-92,
ALIASwas marked as a<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>.In SQL-99
ALIASwas marked as an "Additional Reserved Word", and added to the list of<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>. Perhaps they reserved the term with the intent to define meaning later, and then withdrew it at a different point. Or, perhaps they reserved the term for vendor defined implementation. PostgreSQL reflected the spec's reservation in the docs, and then removed that reservation with the spec.In SQL-2011,
ALIASis no where to be found and the word "alias" only appears in reference to 'Feature T053, “Explicit aliases for all-fields reference”'
ℹ There is no digitized copy of SQL-86, or SQL-89
postgresql.org/docs/7.3/sql-keywords-appendix.html shows that at least some versions of Postgres did consider it a reserved word. Up through 8.something I believe. I did mention that it appeared to have been dropped as a reserved word in later versions. I did not mention SQL-2011, but older specs.
– mickeyf
2 hours ago
@mickeyf that doc is wrong, perhaps it was never upgraded when Postgres moved from QUEL to SQL ~1994. You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word, github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/…
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
Carrol - I have no reasonable way of checking the accuracy of the documentation. But the same page of the documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1 all indicate that it is a reserved word (but only for SQL99), and they do not omit it from the reserved word list until 9.2. Version 9.1 was released in 2011. So it took them all that time to correct the documentation? I suppose that's at least as plausible as that it was reserved and then 'un-reserved'. I've always had the impression the Postgres was much better than average as far as documentation went. Iconoclast!
– mickeyf
1 hour ago
@mickeyf see my update.
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
add a comment |
According to the Postgres (and other) documentation, 'ALIAS' is listed as a reserved word, at least for SQL99.
That's not true. PostgreSQL maintains a list of reserved and non-reserved terms in the appendix. ALIAS is absent from that list. You can verify PostgreSQL does not use ALIAS by checking out the YACC grammar. Even as far back as Postgres95 ALIAS was not a reserved word You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word
- 👍 MySQL does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👍 Oracle does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👎 SQL Server does (in T-SQL) reserve
ALIAS
SQL Standard
In SQL-92,
ALIASwas marked as a<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>.In SQL-99
ALIASwas marked as an "Additional Reserved Word", and added to the list of<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>. Perhaps they reserved the term with the intent to define meaning later, and then withdrew it at a different point. Or, perhaps they reserved the term for vendor defined implementation. PostgreSQL reflected the spec's reservation in the docs, and then removed that reservation with the spec.In SQL-2011,
ALIASis no where to be found and the word "alias" only appears in reference to 'Feature T053, “Explicit aliases for all-fields reference”'
ℹ There is no digitized copy of SQL-86, or SQL-89
According to the Postgres (and other) documentation, 'ALIAS' is listed as a reserved word, at least for SQL99.
That's not true. PostgreSQL maintains a list of reserved and non-reserved terms in the appendix. ALIAS is absent from that list. You can verify PostgreSQL does not use ALIAS by checking out the YACC grammar. Even as far back as Postgres95 ALIAS was not a reserved word You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word
- 👍 MySQL does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👍 Oracle does NOT reserve
ALIAS
- 👎 SQL Server does (in T-SQL) reserve
ALIAS
SQL Standard
In SQL-92,
ALIASwas marked as a<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>.In SQL-99
ALIASwas marked as an "Additional Reserved Word", and added to the list of<reserved word>; but, there was no use assigned for that<reserved word>. Perhaps they reserved the term with the intent to define meaning later, and then withdrew it at a different point. Or, perhaps they reserved the term for vendor defined implementation. PostgreSQL reflected the spec's reservation in the docs, and then removed that reservation with the spec.In SQL-2011,
ALIASis no where to be found and the word "alias" only appears in reference to 'Feature T053, “Explicit aliases for all-fields reference”'
ℹ There is no digitized copy of SQL-86, or SQL-89
edited 36 mins ago
answered 2 hours ago
Evan CarrollEvan Carroll
31.4k865209
31.4k865209
postgresql.org/docs/7.3/sql-keywords-appendix.html shows that at least some versions of Postgres did consider it a reserved word. Up through 8.something I believe. I did mention that it appeared to have been dropped as a reserved word in later versions. I did not mention SQL-2011, but older specs.
– mickeyf
2 hours ago
@mickeyf that doc is wrong, perhaps it was never upgraded when Postgres moved from QUEL to SQL ~1994. You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word, github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/…
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
Carrol - I have no reasonable way of checking the accuracy of the documentation. But the same page of the documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1 all indicate that it is a reserved word (but only for SQL99), and they do not omit it from the reserved word list until 9.2. Version 9.1 was released in 2011. So it took them all that time to correct the documentation? I suppose that's at least as plausible as that it was reserved and then 'un-reserved'. I've always had the impression the Postgres was much better than average as far as documentation went. Iconoclast!
– mickeyf
1 hour ago
@mickeyf see my update.
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
add a comment |
postgresql.org/docs/7.3/sql-keywords-appendix.html shows that at least some versions of Postgres did consider it a reserved word. Up through 8.something I believe. I did mention that it appeared to have been dropped as a reserved word in later versions. I did not mention SQL-2011, but older specs.
– mickeyf
2 hours ago
@mickeyf that doc is wrong, perhaps it was never upgraded when Postgres moved from QUEL to SQL ~1994. You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word, github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/…
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
Carrol - I have no reasonable way of checking the accuracy of the documentation. But the same page of the documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1 all indicate that it is a reserved word (but only for SQL99), and they do not omit it from the reserved word list until 9.2. Version 9.1 was released in 2011. So it took them all that time to correct the documentation? I suppose that's at least as plausible as that it was reserved and then 'un-reserved'. I've always had the impression the Postgres was much better than average as far as documentation went. Iconoclast!
– mickeyf
1 hour ago
@mickeyf see my update.
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
postgresql.org/docs/7.3/sql-keywords-appendix.html shows that at least some versions of Postgres did consider it a reserved word. Up through 8.something I believe. I did mention that it appeared to have been dropped as a reserved word in later versions. I did not mention SQL-2011, but older specs.
– mickeyf
2 hours ago
postgresql.org/docs/7.3/sql-keywords-appendix.html shows that at least some versions of Postgres did consider it a reserved word. Up through 8.something I believe. I did mention that it appeared to have been dropped as a reserved word in later versions. I did not mention SQL-2011, but older specs.
– mickeyf
2 hours ago
@mickeyf that doc is wrong, perhaps it was never upgraded when Postgres moved from QUEL to SQL ~1994. You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word, github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/…
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
@mickeyf that doc is wrong, perhaps it was never upgraded when Postgres moved from QUEL to SQL ~1994. You can see that in Postgres95 (the first version in the migration) it did not have ALIAS as a reserved word, github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/…
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
Carrol - I have no reasonable way of checking the accuracy of the documentation. But the same page of the documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1 all indicate that it is a reserved word (but only for SQL99), and they do not omit it from the reserved word list until 9.2. Version 9.1 was released in 2011. So it took them all that time to correct the documentation? I suppose that's at least as plausible as that it was reserved and then 'un-reserved'. I've always had the impression the Postgres was much better than average as far as documentation went. Iconoclast!
– mickeyf
1 hour ago
Carrol - I have no reasonable way of checking the accuracy of the documentation. But the same page of the documentation for every version from 7.1 through 9.1 all indicate that it is a reserved word (but only for SQL99), and they do not omit it from the reserved word list until 9.2. Version 9.1 was released in 2011. So it took them all that time to correct the documentation? I suppose that's at least as plausible as that it was reserved and then 'un-reserved'. I've always had the impression the Postgres was much better than average as far as documentation went. Iconoclast!
– mickeyf
1 hour ago
@mickeyf see my update.
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
@mickeyf see my update.
– Evan Carroll
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It is used at least in various flavours of Db2: ALIAS is an object that allows you to specify a different name for another object, like table. It's frequently used to allow references in one schema to objects in another schema without explicitly specifying that schema.
create table SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR (...);
set schema MYSCHEMA;
create alias FOOBAR for SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR;
select * from FOOBAR;
ALIAS is an alias for SYNONYM; the latter concept also exists in Oracle and SQL Server.
add a comment |
It is used at least in various flavours of Db2: ALIAS is an object that allows you to specify a different name for another object, like table. It's frequently used to allow references in one schema to objects in another schema without explicitly specifying that schema.
create table SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR (...);
set schema MYSCHEMA;
create alias FOOBAR for SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR;
select * from FOOBAR;
ALIAS is an alias for SYNONYM; the latter concept also exists in Oracle and SQL Server.
add a comment |
It is used at least in various flavours of Db2: ALIAS is an object that allows you to specify a different name for another object, like table. It's frequently used to allow references in one schema to objects in another schema without explicitly specifying that schema.
create table SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR (...);
set schema MYSCHEMA;
create alias FOOBAR for SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR;
select * from FOOBAR;
ALIAS is an alias for SYNONYM; the latter concept also exists in Oracle and SQL Server.
It is used at least in various flavours of Db2: ALIAS is an object that allows you to specify a different name for another object, like table. It's frequently used to allow references in one schema to objects in another schema without explicitly specifying that schema.
create table SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR (...);
set schema MYSCHEMA;
create alias FOOBAR for SOMEOTHERSCHEMA.FOOBAR;
select * from FOOBAR;
ALIAS is an alias for SYNONYM; the latter concept also exists in Oracle and SQL Server.
answered 2 hours ago
mustacciomustaccio
9,05872136
9,05872136
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f227095%2fis-the-keyword-alias-actually-used%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
SQL-92 mentions it as a potential future reserved word. contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt
– Martin Smith
1 hour ago
1
So based on the feedback and research into the older specs (mostly by Evan) it looks like the answer actually is "someone thought "oh we'd better make this reserved because it looks like we might want to use it" but no one ever did use it" (except DB2). The bottom line for me is that it is not reserved now in any of the RDBMS I expect to be using.
– mickeyf
42 mins ago