From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "AS" by the syntax of table reference.(8.4 proposal) |
Date: | 2008-02-09 22:15:03 |
Message-ID: | 874pchlqu0.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> A possibly bigger problem is that the solution for postfix ops doesn't
> scale nicely: we'd have to list not only IDENT, but *every* can-be-ColId
> keyword, in the %precedence list, which (a) is a maintenance headache,
> (b) causes a conflict because some are already listed there with the
> wrong precedence for this purpose, and (c) is very scary from the
> viewpoint of possibly silently suppressing warnings of future grammar
> ambiguities. I'm not even that happy with giving IDENT a precedence;
> giving precedences to 270 or so currently precedence-less tokens
> just doesn't sound safe.
There are other rules that have a %prec on the rule itself, does that not work
here? *off to read the fine manual now*
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-09 22:26:15 | Re: "AS" by the syntax of table reference.(8.4 proposal) |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2008-02-09 21:58:00 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |