From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> A possibly bigger problem is that the solution for postfix ops doesn't
> scale nicely: we'd have to list not only IDENT, but *every* can-be-ColId
> keyword, in the %precedence list, which (a) is a maintenance headache,
> (b) causes a conflict because some are already listed there with the
> wrong precedence for this purpose, and (c) is very scary from the
> viewpoint of possibly silently suppressing warnings of future grammar
> ambiguities. I'm not even that happy with giving IDENT a precedence;
> giving precedences to 270 or so currently precedence-less tokens
> just doesn't sound safe.
Yeah, when I began, I tried the method same as a_expr IDENT as you.
That is because I thought that it was effective in order to avoid a conflict
simply. It is worried that it may cause the problem of next operation by the
reason IDENT is not the simple token. Therefore, c_expr IDENT of the
method of doing with a basic rule was proposed. However, If it is allowed
in the place which you consider, I don't have an objection.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Browne||Date: 2008-02-10 03:51:09|
|Subject: Fwd: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2008-02-10 00:40:04|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan|