From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavlo Baron" <pb(at)pbit(dot)org> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TODO question |
Date: | 2001-12-29 16:54:39 |
Message-ID: | 18847.1009644879@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavlo Baron" <pb(at)pbit(dot)org> writes:
> I see. Can I say in simple words, that everything that can be parsed without
> any knowledge about the database condition has to be pre-parse-analized and
> the rest has to be post-parse-analized, then?
Exactly. The grammar phase has to operate without examining the
database, because it needs to be able to run even in transaction-aborted
state (so we can recognize COMMIT and ROLLBACK commands). Parse
analysis does the lookups and so forth to determine exactly what the
raw syntax tree really means.
> summary (if any) where I would find a rough desc. on such distinction?
There's no substitute for reading the code ... the point above is
mentioned in the comments at the head of gram.y, for example.
> BTW, what about constructs like:
> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1,,2);
> wouldn't it make the whole thing a bit simpler?
Maybe, but it's not SQL92. Looks kind of error-prone to me anyway.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-12-29 18:55:55 | Updated date/time parsing |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-29 16:54:09 | Re: text -> time cast problem |