Re: Bug in CREATE OPERATOR

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> [ "CREATE OPERATOR testbit" is accepted ]

Not only that, but it looks like you can create aggregate functions and
types that have operator-like names :-(. Someone was way too eager to
save a production or two, I think:

DefineStmt: CREATE def_type def_name definition
{
...
}
;

def_type: OPERATOR { $$ = OPERATOR; }
| TYPE_P { $$ = TYPE_P; }
| AGGREGATE { $$ = AGGREGATE; }
;

def_name: PROCEDURE { $$ = "procedure"; }
| JOIN { $$ = "join"; }
| all_Op { $$ = $1; }
| ColId { $$ = $1; }
;

Seems to me that this should be simplified down to

CREATE OPERATOR all_Op ...

CREATE TYPE ColId ...

CREATE AGGREGATE ColId ...

Any objections? Has anyone got an idea why PROCEDURE and JOIN are
special-cased here? PROCEDURE, at least, could be promoted from
ColLabel to ColId were it not offered as an alternative to ColId here.

> Now we have a big problem, as the DROP OPERATOR command cannot delete the
> illegally named operator.

Just remove it by DELETEing the row from pg_operator.

regards, tom lane