Re: BUG #5732: parsing of: "WHERE mycol=123AND ..."

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #5732: parsing of: "WHERE mycol=123AND ..."
Date: 2010-10-30 18:23:51
Message-ID: 19944.1288463031@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I experimented a bit with mysql's behavior, and it seems that (at least
>> in 5.1.51) what they do is treat "1and" or "2or" as if it were an
>> identifier. They're definitely not throwing an error, at least not on

> I guess the eleant question is what the lexical elements section of
> the standard says about identifiers. It pretty clearly declares that
> they can't start with digits:

Yeah. The key point IMO is that this *input* is not spec-compliant.
So implementations can either throw an error, or define their own
spec extension as to how to interpret it. I find mysql's behavior
interesting mostly because it shows that throwing an error isn't
necessarily common practice. Anybody want to try Oracle, DB2, etc?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gary Doades 2010-10-30 18:32:20 Re: BUG #5732: parsing of: "WHERE mycol=123AND ..."
Previous Message Greg Stark 2010-10-30 18:14:10 Re: BUG #5732: parsing of: "WHERE mycol=123AND ..."