Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?
Date: 2020-05-19 23:47:11
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> However, we do have to have a benefit to show those people whose
> queries we break. Hence my insistence on having a working AS fix
> (or some other benefit) before not after.

I experimented with this a bit more, and came up with the attached.
It's not a working patch, just a set of grammar changes that Bison
is happy with. (Getting to a working patch would require fixing the
various build infrastructure that knows about the keyword classification,
which seems straightforward but tedious.)

As Robert theorized, it works to move a fairly-small number of unreserved
keywords into a new slightly-reserved category. However, as the patch
stands, only the remaining fully-unreserved keywords can be used as bare
column labels. I'd hoped to be able to also use col_name keywords in that
way (which'd make the set of legal bare column labels mostly the same as
ColId). The col_name keywords that cause problems are, it appears,
only PRECISION, CHARACTER, and CHAR_P. So in principle we could move
those three into yet another keyword category and then let the remaining
col_name keywords be included in BareColLabel. I kind of think that
that's more complication than it's worth, though.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
bison-hack-for-optional-AS.patch text/x-diff 5.8 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Gilman 2020-05-20 00:52:25 Re: BUG #16147: postgresql 12.1 (from homebrew) - pg_restore -h localhost --jobs=2 crashes
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-05-19 23:31:29 Re: pg_stat_wal_receiver and flushedUpto/writtenUpto