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