From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "woger151" <woger151(at)jqpx37(dot)cotse(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: unary operators, precedence, grouping |
Date: | 2007-03-10 17:14:19 |
Message-ID: | 16862.1173546859@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"woger151" <woger151(at)jqpx37(dot)cotse(dot)net> writes:
> Why wouldn't <~~(item_1) + <~~(item_2) be parsed as (<~~(item_1)) +
> (<~~(item_2))?
Because it's parsed as
<~~ ( (item_1) + ( <~~ (item_2) ) )
"+" binds more tightly than any non-built-in operator, per the
precedence chart in the manual:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/sql-syntax-lexical.html#SQL-PRECEDENCE
so this interpretation is preferred over the alternative
( <~~ (item_1) ) + ( <~~ (item_2) )
Those are the only two possibilities without getting into right-unary
operators, which the parser is generally designed not to do if it can
avoid it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-10 17:23:51 | Re: HIPPA (was Re: Anyone know ...) |
Previous Message | Rich Shepard | 2007-03-10 15:59:49 | Re: Re: Anyone know a good opensource CRM that actually installs with Posgtres? |