Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2010/8/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's a documented and useful feature.  It's not going away.  Even
>> if it did go away, removing it wouldn't do a thing to solve grammar
>> problems, because the grammar isn't involved in that.
>
> This isn't a SQL feature and it coming from old times like "missing
> from". Without this we can little bit simplify ParseFuncOrColumn.
>
> But I don't know, if this can be a significant win. It is just obsolete.

I think the point is that it's not going to solve the problem you have
right now. It might or might not be a good thing to do, but it's not
going to help with GROUPING SETS.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company