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

Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: PostgreSQL reference manual

From: dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould)
To: andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at (Zeugswetter Andreas)
Cc: maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: PostgreSQL reference manual
Date: 1998-03-27 01:04:34
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> >> David Gould writes:
> >> > Consider also not updateing the grammar. The strength of PostgreSQL is that
> >> > functions can be added to work inside the server. These functions can often
> >> > do whatever is being proposed as new syntax.
> >> 
> >> So you want me to not check the syntax while parsing the embedded SQL code?
> >
> >What I think we was suggesting is that we add non-ANSI functionality as
> >function calls rather than grammer changes with keywords.  The only
> >disadvantage is that it is a little more cumbersom, and less intuitive
> >for users.
> but it ** is ** ANSI functionality, look under "role"  (with an O)

Ok, but are we using the ANSI syntax? If so, then I withdraw my objection.
But, if we are adding ANSI functionality with UNIQUE syntax, then why bother
hacking the parser since the functionality can be added with functions.


David Gould            dg(at)illustra(dot)com           510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468 
Informix Software  (No, really)         300 Lakeside Drive  Oakland, CA 94612
 - Linux. Not because it is free. Because it is better.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-03-27 02:47:21
Subject: Re: [QUESTIONS] Using % in a query
Previous:From: David GouldDate: 1998-03-27 01:01:27
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group