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

Re: [HACKERS] parser dilemma

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] parser dilemma
Date: 2007-04-22 17:10:17
Message-ID: 6819.1177261817@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I think attaching a precedence to the GENERATED keyword is dangerous.

> Especially when we have a good workaround which would just require use 
> of ()  around certain postfix-operator expressions.

Yeah, I'm leaning to the idea that removing postfix operators from
b_expr is the least bad solution.

One thing that would have to be looked at is the rules in ruleutils.c
for suppressing "unnecessary" parentheses when reverse-listing
parsetrees.  It might be safest to just never suppress them around a
postfix operator.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-04-22 18:52:18
Subject: Re: BUG #3242: FATAL: could not unlock semaphore: error code 298
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-22 16:54:29
Subject: Re: [Fwd: PGBuildfarm member narwhal Branch HEAD Status changed from OK to InstallCheck failure]

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-04-22 21:20:15
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Some further performance tweaks for planning large inheritance
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-22 16:53:14
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Some further performance tweaks for planning large inheritance

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