Re: Some surprising precedence behavior in PG's grammar

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> So I'd still like to get rid of the precedence markings for TRUE_P,
> FALSE_P, and UNKNOWN, and will do so unless somebody has a really good
> reason not to.  (It looks like we could avoid marking ZONE, too.)  But
> I would be happier if we could also not mark NULL, because that's surely
> used in a lot of other places, and could easily bite us a lot harder
> than this.  Can anyone think of an alternative way to resolve this
> particular conflict without the blunt instrument of a precedence marking?
>

Isn't there already some gadget which forces postfix operators to be
discouraged compared to some other interpretation in other cases? That
would be the opposite of the current interpretation though which you
said you preferred.

--
greg