Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
Date: 2010-08-09 14:22:00
Message-ID: 29078.1281363720@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I am working on Grouping Sets support. The first issue is "cube"
> keyword. Contrib module "cube" define a few functions "cube". So if we
> want to continue in support this function, then "cube" have to be a
> unreserved keyword. But then we have a gram conflict with mentioned
> obsolete syntax. I am thinking so after removing add_missing_from this
> syntax is useless. Without this feature we can clean a gramatic.

That's a documented and useful feature. It's not going away. Even
if it did go away, removing it wouldn't do a thing to solve grammar
problems, because the grammar isn't involved in that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-08-09 14:39:31 Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-08-09 14:20:39 Re: review: xml_is_well_formed