Re: Grammer Cleanup

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Grammer Cleanup
Date: 2004-12-29 18:00:00
Message-ID: 20041229180000.GB10437@ns.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > Do you agree with the other changes (ColId -> SchemaName, ColId ->=20
> > SavePointId) ?
>
> I don't really see the value of them. They add some marginal
> documentation I suppose, but they also make the grammar bigger and
> slower. A more substantial objection to the practice is that it can
> introduce needless shift/reduce conflicts, by forcing the parser into
> making unnecessary decisions before it has enough context to
> determine what kind of name a particular token really is.

Perhaps the name of 'ColId' should be changed then. At least to me that
comes across as 'Column Identifier', and apparently some others thought
it wasn't appropriate for user names (UserId existed and was mapped to
ColId prior to my patch). Personally, I'd just like it to be
consistent, when I was looking at how to add the grammar for group
ownership group names were identified in one place as 'ColId' and another
as 'UserId', iirc.

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-12-29 18:12:07 Re: Grammer Cleanup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-12-29 17:50:31 Re: Grammer Cleanup