Re: Some surprising precedence behavior in PG's grammar

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Some surprising precedence behavior in PG's grammar
Date: 2011-05-05 03:03:00
Message-ID: 22438.1304564580@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Isn't there already some gadget which forces postfix operators to be
> discouraged compared to some other interpretation in other cases?

Yeah. I'm not unhappy with the current grammar's behavior in this case.
What's bothering me is that the implementation seems likely to create
surprising/unexpected behaviors after future grammar changes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2011-05-05 03:19:56 Re: Some surprising precedence behavior in PG's grammar
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2011-05-05 02:49:49 Re: Enhancing online recovery in SR mode