From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |
Date: | 2009-09-10 21:08:45 |
Message-ID: | 1252616925.3931.51.camel@hvost1700 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 16:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 15:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 15:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> >> It might be possible to make it work, but it's likely to create a lot
> >> >> of bloat in pg_type, and will make it very difficult to implement
> >> >> features such as anonymous functions (i.e. LAMBDA).
> >>
> >> > For functions, anonymous does not mean "impossible to identify" ;)
> >>
> >> > If it is something (semi)-permanent we should store it in pg_type and id
> >> > it by oid, if it is really, really transient (say a closure generated
> >> > upper in the function chain) we can probably assign it some kind of
> >> > temporary, per-process oid for the duration of its existence
> >>
> >> Right. See what we do for anonymous composite types.
> >>
> >>
> >> > we could also change parser and translate reserved word ANY to typename
> >> > "any" .
> >>
> >> ANY is a reserved word for good and sufficient reasons. "Change the
> >> parser" is not an answer.
> >
> > I suspect that alt least in some early SQL parsers all type names were reserved.
> >
> > Or do you see a possible conflict here ?
> >
> > What way can ANY be used in function type definition ?
>
> Perhaps you should try changing ANY to a non-reserved word in the
> parser and see what happens. If you come up with a way to resolve the
> shift/reduce and/or reduce/reduce conflicts that will probably result,
> submit a patch.
I don't want it to be a non-reserved word.
What I want is that this reserved word can be used in function argument
and return type definitions with special meaning
like reserver word FROM , which can be used in two different meanings
like this
SELECT substring(fielda FROM myregex') FROM mytable;
> ...Robert
--
Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability
Services, Consulting and Training
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-09-10 21:10:42 | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-09-10 21:05:28 | Re: COPY enhancements |