From: | "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "AS" by the syntax of table reference.(8.4 proposal) |
Date: | 2008-02-10 03:46:17 |
Message-ID: | 013501c86b97$7e598990$0c01a8c0@yourc3ftrhkaod |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi.
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> A possibly bigger problem is that the solution for postfix ops doesn't
> scale nicely: we'd have to list not only IDENT, but *every* can-be-ColId
> keyword, in the %precedence list, which (a) is a maintenance headache,
> (b) causes a conflict because some are already listed there with the
> wrong precedence for this purpose, and (c) is very scary from the
> viewpoint of possibly silently suppressing warnings of future grammar
> ambiguities. I'm not even that happy with giving IDENT a precedence;
> giving precedences to 270 or so currently precedence-less tokens
> just doesn't sound safe.
Yeah, when I began, I tried the method same as a_expr IDENT as you.
That is because I thought that it was effective in order to avoid a conflict
simply. It is worried that it may cause the problem of next operation by the
reason IDENT is not the simple token. Therefore, c_expr IDENT of the
method of doing with a basic rule was proposed. However, If it is allowed
in the place which you consider, I don't have an objection.
Regards,
Hiroshi Saito
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2008-02-10 03:51:09 | Fwd: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2008-02-10 00:40:04 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |