| From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Meskes <Michael_Meskes(at)topmail(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Keywords |
| Date: | 1999-02-09 03:02:32 |
| Message-ID: | 36BFA548.6E8E4B42@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Could anyone tell me why a term like 'int' is not a keyword?
What Bruce sez...
> Also I need a list of postgresql types so I know which ones should be
> accepted by ecpg.
Check the chapter on data types in the new html/hardcopy User's Guide.
But since you can define new types, I'm not sure whatever you are
planning is general enough. The main parser gram.y has to support
several different kinds of type syntax, for SQL92 date/time (e.g. TIME
WITH TIME ZONE), character strings (e.g. CHARACTER VARYING, numeric
types (e.g. FLOAT(6)) and others (e.g. INTEGER).
> Finally I wonder whether we should make all ecpg keywords keywords for
> the backend too. Or else we could end up with queries expressable via
> psql but not via ecpg.
Not out of the question. We could then share keywords.c between the two
interfaces.
- Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-02-09 03:56:18 | Optimizer fix |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-02-09 03:01:50 | Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ? |