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

Re: "AS" by the syntax of table reference.(8.4 proposal)

From: "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp>
To: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "AS" by the syntax of table reference.(8.4 proposal)
Date: 2008-02-10 03:46:17
Message-ID: 013501c86b97$7e598990$0c01a8c0@yourc3ftrhkaod (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

Hiroshi Saito

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Christopher BrowneDate: 2008-02-10 03:51:09
Subject: Fwd: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2008-02-10 00:40:04
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group