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: 9803270104.AA24802@hawk.illustra.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andreas:
> >> 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.

-dg

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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