| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)refractions(dot)net>, Mark Cave-Ayland <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk>, dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostGIS Integration |
| Date: | 2004-02-04 07:07:06 |
| Message-ID: | 7250.1075878426@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> I can't see any way to handle parameterized types without extending the
>> grammar individually for each one --- otherwise it's too hard to tell
>> them apart from function calls.
> Disallow it in table definitions, but allow it in domain definitions...
Those two cases are not hard, because in those scenarios the parser
knows it is expecting a type specification. The real problem is this
syntax for typed literals:
typename 'string'
which occurs in ordinary expressions. So when you see "name(" you
aren't real sure if you're seeing the start of a function call or the
start of a typed-literal construct. And it's very hard to postpone that
decision until you see what comes after the right paren.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-02-04 07:23:08 | Re: PostGIS Integration |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-02-04 07:01:20 | Re: PostGIS Integration |