Thanks Tom, for the explanation.

Gokul.

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >    Is there any reason why we have given lesser precedence for postfix
> > operator compared to multiplication/division? Usually postfix operators
> have
> > more precedence than the binary operations. Is this some kind of work
> around
> > to provide user-defined operators? Can someone help me understand this?
>
> A bit of poking in the CVS logs for gram.y reveals
>
> 2001-01-23 17:39  tgl
>
>        * src/backend/parser/gram.y: Give 'a_expr ::= a_expr Op' production
>        a slightly lower precedence than Op, so that the sequence 'a_expr
>        Op Op a_expr' will be parsed as a_expr Op (Op a_expr) not (a_expr
>        Op) Op a_expr as formerly.  In other words, prefer treating
>        user-defined operators as prefix operators to treating them as
>        postfix operators, when there is an ambiguity.  Also clean up a
>        couple of other infelicities in production priority assignment ---
>        for example, BETWEEN wasn't being given the intended priority, but
>        that of AND.
>
> There are several other nasty things that we've had to do in order to
> keep supporting postfix operators at all.  I thibk most people view them
> as a legacy feature best avoided.
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

• Re: Precedence of Postfix operators at 2010-02-07 16:44:38 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2010-02-07 22:29:17
	Subject: Re: pgsql: Create a "relation mapping" infrastructure to support changing
Previous:	From: Dimitri Fontaine	Date: 2010-02-07 21:54:54
	Subject: Re: damage control mode