| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Fixes gram.y |
| Date: | 2002-03-20 19:47:56 |
| Message-ID: | 6764.1016653676@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, I am supposed to see if I can fix this and get rid of the "into"
> field in SelectStmt at the same time. Right Tom?
Yeah, we had talked about that ... but I'm not sure it's worth the
trouble. I don't see any clean way for the SELECT grammar rule to
return info about an INTO clause, other than by including it in
SelectStmt.
Probably the easiest answer is for CreateCommandTag to just deal with
drilling down into the parsetree to see if INTO appears.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-03-20 19:47:59 | Re: Proposal: 7.2b2 today |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-20 19:35:43 | Firebird 2.0 moving to C++ |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-20 20:08:53 | Re: Domain Support -- another round |
| Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-03-20 18:14:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Fixes gram.y |