| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Non-decimal integer literals |
| Date: | 2021-09-28 15:30:28 |
| Message-ID: | 31bba70a-f5a8-9276-37a6-fa6f2c4eee6c@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09.09.21 16:08, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> Even without that point, this patch *is* going to break valid queries,
>> because every one of those cases is a valid number-followed-by-identifier
>> today,
>
> Ah, true that. So if this does go in, we may as well add the
> underscores at the same time.
Yeah, looks like I'll need to look into the identifier lexing issues
previously discussed. I'll attack that during the next commit fest.
>> so I kind of wonder why we're in such a hurry to adopt something
>> that hasn't even made it past draft-standard status.
> I don't really see a hurry here. I am fine with waiting until the draft
> becomes final.
Right, the point is to explore this now so that it can be ready when the
standard is ready.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-09-28 15:46:52 | Re: Couldn't we mark enum_in() as immutable? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-09-28 15:26:51 | Re: Non-decimal integer literals |