| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Planned cleanups in attribute parsing |
| Date: | 2002-03-06 20:28:08 |
| Message-ID: | 25620.1015446488@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Currently, the table name associated with an unparsed statement is typically
>> just a string. I propose replacing this with a RelationRef node type,
>> carrying a List of names corresponding to the dotted names of the reference
>> (1 to 3 names). Alternatively, we could just use the raw List of names and
>> not bother with an explicit node; any preferences?
> We can handle most cases with RangeVar (+ the ones you've proposed
> above).
Right, I had not noticed there was already a suitable node type.
RangeVar will do fine, no need to invent RelationRef ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-06 20:49:37 | Re: new hash function |
| Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-03-06 20:16:26 | Re: Planned cleanups in attribute parsing |