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

Re: [HACKERS] grammer/keywords/shift/reduce conflicts

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Brett McCormick <brett(at)work(dot)chicken(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] grammer/keywords/shift/reduce conflicts
Date: 1998-02-26 05:45:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> well, by putting TRANSACTION and ORDER in the ColID grammer, I seem to
> have introduced some shift/reduce and reduce/reduce conflicts.. will
> the grammer work?  What are your thoughts on using these as column
> identifiers?  If they aren't going to end up usable I certainly won't
> use them as table/field names.. (order sounds like a really bad idea)

Yup. I think that the conflicts mean that there now would be ambiguous
grammar. So, if you stumble across just the right statement and order of
words, you may not get what you expected, and not be able to get what you
want. Both "transaction" and "order" are pretty clearly SQL-ish words, so
I wouldn't bother trying to make them work in other contexts...

                                  - Tom

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jan WieckDate: 1998-02-26 06:55:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SELECT currval('SEQ') broken?
Previous:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-02-26 05:39:10
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] mode of libs

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