Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Missing ColLabel tokens

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Missing ColLabel tokens
Date: 2001-01-04 23:25:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> I suspect we're stuck on that for AS.  However, TYPE is actually allowed
>> as a ColId, via the 'generic' production, so in reality it's not
>> reserved.

> I think this generic production might be a mistake.

It looks fairly weird to me too.  Seems to me that we should get rid of
token "generic", have ColId's first alternative be IDENT, add TYPE to
ColId (or possibly TokenId), and have the Generic type production accept
IDENT directly.

Thomas, why'd you do it this way?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2001-01-05 01:00:42
Subject: time + date_part oddness?
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-01-04 22:33:13
Subject: Re: Missing ColLabel tokens

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group