2008/10/29 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Can "ROWS" be reserved_keyword?
>> In window specifications, we have
>> OVER (ORDER BY expr_list [(ROWS|RANGE) ... ])
>> and currently "ROWS" is not reserved so bison is confused with cases
>> of "ROWS" included in expr_list and in FRAME clause. Because there is
>> no delimiter between ORDER BY clause and FRAME (that is (ROWS |
>> RANGE)) clause, "ROWS" can be in expr_list as a_expr.
> Right offhand, I don't see any alternative but to make both ROWS and
> RANGE reserved. It's pretty annoying since that might break existing
> applications that have been using these as identifiers, but the SQL
> committee seems to care little about that :-(
> BTW, finding this sort of problem is exactly why ignoring shift/reduce
> conflicts is a bad idea. You would've ended up with unexpected
> behaviors given the wrong input.
I see it now. This is so good study to me, though it spent me much
time. Thanks anyway.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2008-10-28 17:30:24|
|Subject: Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2008-10-28 17:10:17|
|Subject: Re: Updating FSM on recovery|