Re: SQL function parse error ?

Nice to see that things are starting to move.
I was wandering however whether I've succeeded in making a point.

Regards,
=====
Radu-Adrian Popescu
CSA, DBA, Developer
Aldratech Ltd.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [SQL] SQL function parse error ?

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> Although the rules could be similar to those for + and - at the end of
> operator strings (no $ at the end of an operator unless it contains
> characters not normally in SQL92 operators). I'm not sure that
> behavior is sensible either, but if someone wanted to
> do it for their own installation it's about a 2 line patch.

It could be done that way. But given that "$" already has one weird
special case in the operator name rules (ie, it can't be the only
character of an operator name), I feel that we'd be making things overly
complicated.

The proposal back in Aug 2001 was to remove "$" from the set of operator
name characters altogether (which would allow us to use it in
identifiers instead, improving Oracle compatibility). I originally
objected to that idea on backwards-compatibility grounds, but I'm
leaning more and more to the view that it's the right thing to do.

I've re-opened the thread on pgsql-hackers about this, and we'll see
whether any consensus emerges this time.

regards, tom lane