is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
Date: 2010-08-09 10:18:33
Message-ID: AANLkTi=G4E7rAjj3MAb89mVV+2+HWf2GFcpCGdf5Y9mH@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello

I am working on Grouping Sets support. The first issue is "cube"
keyword. Contrib module "cube" define a few functions "cube". So if we
want to continue in support this function, then "cube" have to be a
unreserved keyword. But then we have a gram conflict with mentioned
obsolete syntax. I am thinking so after removing add_missing_from this
syntax is useless. Without this feature we can clean a gramatic.

The "cube" issue can be solved without removing this feature too. We
have to check every funcname on equality to "cube" or "rollup" string.
Is this method acceptable?

Regards

Pavel Stehule

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-08-09 10:51:08 Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-08-09 10:17:51 Re: more personal copyrights