| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Harjyot Bagga <hsbagga28(dot)dev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Grammar guidelines in Postgres |
| Date: | 2024-07-04 16:01:55 |
| Message-ID: | 3411288.1720108915@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Harjyot Bagga <hsbagga28(dot)dev(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> One such suggestion or rule for example is the Postgres does not support
> Postfix operators. So whenever a new feature is introduced developers make
> sure that they do not add a postfix operators in their grammar. Just like
> that are there any other further rules or suggestions compiled by post
> hackers and maintainers?
[ shrug... ] If you try to re-introduce postfix operators you'll get
a ton of shift-reduce conflicts. We have a hard rule that such
conflicts are not allowed, even though Bison can be told to ignore
them. Beyond that, there's not much.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-07-04 16:26:18 | Re: Special-case executor expression steps for common combinations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-04 15:44:51 | Re: pgsql: Add pg_get_acl() to get the ACL for a database object |