From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "AS" by the syntax of table reference.(8.4 proposal) |
Date: | 2008-02-08 22:15:55 |
Message-ID: | 87lk5vksbo.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp> writes:
> Oops, and,
>>> so we really need to support at least ColId as the allowed set of
>>> column alias names. (I tried changing the patch to do that, but
>>> got a lot of shift/reduce conflicts, some of which are maybe fixable
>>> but some seem hard to fix.)
I think supporting only IDENT wouldn't be all that much of a loss.
But yeah, c_expr isn't enough. We really need {a,b}_expr sans postfix
expressions. I tried to create something like that earlier and found my bison
grammar foo a bit rusty.
Hm. I wonder if we could do a hack where we parse the a_expr ColId as a
regular a_expr and then check for that in the target_el rule or in parse
analysis and pull the ColId out.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-09 00:16:33 | Re: "AS" by the syntax of table reference.(8.4 proposal) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-08 21:33:55 | Re: "AS" by the syntax of table reference.(8.4 proposal) |