Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I suspect we're stuck on that for AS. However, TYPE is actually allowed
>> as a ColId, via the 'generic' production, so in reality it's not
> I think this generic production might be a mistake.
It looks fairly weird to me too. Seems to me that we should get rid of
token "generic", have ColId's first alternative be IDENT, add TYPE to
ColId (or possibly TokenId), and have the Generic type production accept
Thomas, why'd you do it this way?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tatsuo Ishii||Date: 2001-01-05 01:00:42|
|Subject: time + date_part oddness?|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2001-01-04 22:33:13|
|Subject: Re: Missing ColLabel tokens |