From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Command Prompt, Inc(dot)" <pgsql-hackers(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL RENAME bug? |
Date: | 2001-10-23 19:31:27 |
Message-ID: | 6494.1003865487@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Command Prompt, Inc." <pgsql-hackers(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Mainly, the existing documentation on the RENAME statement seems
> inaccurate; it states that you can re-name variables, records, or
> rowtypes. However, in practice, our tests show that attempting to RENAME
> valid variables with:
> RENAME varname TO newname;
> ...yeilds a PL/pgSQL parse error, inexplicably. If I try the same syntax
> on a non-declared variable, it actually says "there is no variable" with
> that name in the current block, so...I think something odd is happening. :)
Yup, this is a bug. The plpgsql grammar expects varname to be a T_WORD,
but in fact the scanner will only return T_WORD for a name that is not
any known variable name. Thus RENAME cannot possibly work, and probably
never has worked.
Looks like it should accept T_VARIABLE, T_RECORD, T_ROW (at least).
T_WORD ought to draw "no such variable". Jan, I think this is your turf...
> The RENAME statement seems kind of odd, since it seems that you could just
> as easily declare a general variable with the right name to begin with,
It seems pretty useless to me too. Perhaps it's there because Oracle
has one?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jani Averbach | 2001-10-23 19:46:10 | Re: Charset problem |
Previous Message | Markus Meyer | 2001-10-23 18:44:44 | Re: mail list headers |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Roland Roberts | 2001-10-23 20:22:13 | Re: Is there no "DESCRIBE <TABLE>;" on PGSQL? help!!! |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-23 19:14:14 | Re: Index of a table is not used (in any case) |