Re: 7.1 gets stricter on SQL

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