Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?

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.

Regards

Pavel

>
>                        regards, tom lane
>