| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Harjyot Bagga <hsbagga28(dot)dev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grammar guidelines in Postgres |
| Date: | 2024-07-04 10:10:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TNghk5btyKHi5L8YbbthbuHyNwfPwwJwQxjONXToVgd0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> Thank you for your reply. I am aware about these conflicts, but thank you for the explanation.
> My question is specific to Postgres. Do we have a set of guidelines we keep in mind while writing grammar rules while introducing new features to postgres?
>
> One such suggestion or rule for example is the Postgres does not support Postfix operators. So whenever a new feature is introduced developers make sure that they do not add a postfix operators in their grammar. Just like that are there any other further rules or suggestions compiled by post hackers and maintainers?
I believe you wanted to reply to the mailing list, not to me directly.
Please use the "Reply to All" button.
Do the postfix operators you mention exist in the SQL standard?
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2024-07-04 10:16:16 | Re: pg_wal_summary_contents() and pg_walsummary may return different results on the same WAL summary file |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2024-07-04 10:04:27 | Re: Recommended books for admin |