| From: | Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Oddity in column specifications for table creation | 
| Date: | 2007-12-12 00:36:31 | 
| Message-ID: | 1197419792.27581.14.camel@bloodnok.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
On Tue, 2007-11-12 at 19:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> writes:
> > This works fine:
> >     "str2"                varchar(40)
> > This does not:
> >     "str2"                "pg_catalog"."varchar"(40)
> 
> Yeah.  That's because in all existing PG releases, type modifiers are
> handled by hard-wired grammar productions that *only* work for VARCHAR,
> CHARACTER VARYING, and so on, treated as keywords.
> 
> Teodor did some remarkable work for 8.3, fixing things so that any type
> name could have modifiers attached, without (we hope ;-)) breaking any
> cases that worked before.  It had previously been assumed that this was
> impossible, because a type-name-plus-modifier looks just about
> indistinguishable from a function call, but he managed to find a way
> that side-stepped all the grammatical ambiguities.  Your examples all
> work fine in CVS HEAD.
Cool.
Thanks, Tom for the response, and Teodor for fixing my problem before I
even knew I had it.
__
Marc
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2007-12-12 00:38:21 | Re: top posting | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-12 00:32:39 | Re: Oddity in column specifications for table creation |