| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk |
| Subject: | Re: FETCH FIRST clause PERCENT option |
| Date: | 2019-03-31 21:57:37 |
| Message-ID: | 22522.1554069457@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> offset_clause:
>> @@ -15435,6 +15442,7 @@ reserved_keyword:
>> | ONLY
>> | OR
>> | ORDER
>> + | PERCENT
>> | PLACING
>> | PRIMARY
>> | REFERENCES
> Are we really ok with adding a new reserved keyword 'PERCENT' for this?
I'm not. It doesn't look like it ought to be necessary to reserve it,
either, given that we don't have to reduce the production right there.
(If that doesn't work right away, try getting rid of row_or_rows
in favor of spelling out those alternatives in separate productions.)
More generally: using an undocumented list as the data structure for
select_limit's result was already a pretty bad idea, I think, and
this patch certainly makes it totally unreadable. Probably ought
to refactor that to use some sort of struct.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2019-03-31 22:31:58 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2019-03-31 21:49:51 | Re: DWIM mode for psql |