Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?
Date: 2020-09-18 17:42:53
Message-ID: CA+TgmobUYZinuiD_DwYgLD47GZBNo+sjj80WFnB8ODUxRneJog@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:29 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I confess to not having paid very close attention to this thread
> lately, but the last I'd noticed the terminology proposed for
> internal use was "bare column label", which I think is much better.

I agree.

> As for what to expose in pg_get_keywords, I think something like
> "label_requires_as bool" would be immediately understandable.
> If you really want it to be an enum sort of thing, maybe the output
> column title could be "collabel" with values "bare" or "requires_AS".

It's sort of possible to be confused by "label requires as" since "as"
is being used as a known but isn't really one generally speaking, but
we can't very well quote it so I don't know how to make it more clear.

> So I'm thinking about making these changes in gram.y:
>
> ImplicitAlias -> BareColLabel
> implicit_alias_keyword -> bare_label_keyword
>
> and corresponding terminology changes elsewhere.

+1.

Thanks for picking this up; I am pretty excited about this.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2020-09-18 18:07:09 Re: PostmasterIsAlive() in recovery (non-USE_POST_MASTER_DEATH_SIGNAL builds)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-09-18 17:27:29 Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."