| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Missing docs on AT TIME ZONE precedence? |
| Date: | 2023-11-27 17:32:54 |
| Message-ID: | 202311271732.hn567fcmvy37@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
We could do something like this. Is this good?
I tried to merge WITH and WITHOUT with the precedence class immediately
above, but that failed: the main grammar compiles fine and no tests
fail, but ECPG does fail to compile the sqljson.pgc test, so there's
some problem there. Now, the ecpg grammar stuff *is* absolute black
magic to me, so I have no idea what to do about that.
(TBH I don't think the added comments really explain the problems fully.
That's most likely because I don't actually understand what the problems
are.)
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Thou shalt study thy libraries and strive not to reinvent them without
cause, that thy code may be short and readable and thy days pleasant
and productive. (7th Commandment for C Programmers)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Merge-JSON-related-grammar-keyword-precedence-cla.patch | text/x-diff | 2.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-11-27 17:50:32 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-11-27 17:13:59 | Re: walwriter interacts quite badly with synchronous_commit=off |