Re: 7.1 gets stricter on SQL

[Pete Helgren <pete@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Joe - thanks for the update - nice.

However, it *might* also be helpful to have a link in the documentation 
(that was in James original post) that describes a bit more about *how* 
it is reserved.  It appears in the list with a >> ID << (whatever the >> 
<< denotes)  and the parent topic simply says "This topic describes the 
restrictions of certain names used by the database manager. In some 
cases, names are reserved and cannot be used by application programs."  
Since it is an HTML document, links to the context of the reservation 
should be easy to add and helpful to have.

I really appreciate the clarification, but sometimes a bit more 
documentation can head off hysteria...I am sure that it is documented 
somewhere, but a link on the word would have been a great help.

Thanks for chiming in Sue.

Pete Helgren
Value Added Software, Inc
www.asaap.com
www.opensource4i.com


On 2/2/2011 12:35 PM, Sue Romano wrote:
> Calm down everyone!  Just because a keyword appears in the SQL reserved
> word list does NOT mean it cannot be used as a column name, function name,
> table name, etc.  It just indicates that there is somewhere is the SQL
> grammar that it needed to appear as a keyword.  In this case, ID is used in
> an obscure place in the new XMLVALIDATE function.  I do not see any way
> that it will interfere with a column named ID. (If anyone finds a problem
> with ID, report it as a problem and I should be able to fix it).
>
> When RID was added, it was used as a function name which could appear in
> the same place in the syntax as a column named RID, so that was a problem.
> When we implement standard-defined syntax, we don't get any say in what
> keywords get used.  I always cringe when I see a reserved word that looks
> like it could be used as a name.  I can only try my best to limit the scope
> of where it needs to be reserved.
>
> Hope this settles everyone down a bit on this issue!
>
> Sue Romano
> IBM i SQL development
>
> > On 2/1/2011 3:45 PM, James Perkins wrote:
> >
> > > If the actual name of the field is ID that *could* be the issue. At 7.1
> ID
> > > is a reserved word for future use. Personally I think it's crap they
> chose
> > > ID, but they did. So even if it isn't the issue now, it could be later.
> > >
> > > http://goo.gl/53jkL
> > >
> > > Full link.
> > http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v7r1m0/topic/db2/rbafzwordsre.htm?resultof=%22%73%71%6c%22%20%22%72%6>5%73%65%72%76%65%64%22%20%22%72%65%73%65%72%76%22%20%22%77%6f%72%64%73%22%20%22%77%6f%72%64%22%20
> > I am so dead.
> >   --buck