Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT

From: Chris <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT
Date: 2000-08-29 00:58:23
Message-ID: 39AB0AAF.C675F7C7@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Chris <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> >> the grammar is just plain not LR(1) unless you
> >> count UNION JOIN as a single token.
> 
> > Would it be bad to make UNION JOIN as a single token?
> 
> That's exactly the solution I'm proposing.  However, it's pretty painful
> to make the lexer do it directly (consider intervening comments, for
> example)

Comments are a pain in the parser. What if something prior to the lexer
filtered out comments before either the lexer or parser could see them?
Would it be as easy as s/--.*// before the lexer?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ChrisDate: 2000-08-29 01:07:25
Subject: Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-08-29 00:27:27
Subject: Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group