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

Re: [PATCHES] binary operators on integers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] binary operators on integers
Date: 2001-01-23 22:43:07
Message-ID: 8142.980289787@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
I wrote:
> Given the infrequency of use of postfix operators compared to prefix,
> I am inclined to think that we should change the grammar to make the
> latter easier to use at the expense of the former.  On the other hand,
> it seems there's a pretty large risk of backwards-incompatibility here.
> Comments?

I backed away from part of the proposed patch --- changing the
precedence of all the prefix-operator productions to UMINUS would
probably break people's queries.  But I've applied the part that
changes the behavior of a_expr Op Op a_expr.  This will now be
parsed as an infix operator followed by a prefix operator.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-23 23:01:19
Subject: Re: Does Oracle store values in indices?
Previous:From: Mikheev, VadimDate: 2001-01-23 22:20:34
Subject: RE: Does Oracle store values in indices?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-24 00:52:36
Subject: Re: patch for src/backend/main/main.c
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-23 21:46:12
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Re: Re: [HACKERS] ODBC Driver int8 Patch

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