| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | kogorman(at)pacbell(dot)net |
| Cc: | PGSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Gram.y patches for better parenthesis handling. |
| Date: | 2000-10-28 04:55:40 |
| Message-ID: | 6784.972708940@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin O'Gorman" <kogorman(at)pacbell(dot)net> writes:
> 2) It does NOT preserve the odd syntax I found when I started looking
> at this, where a SELECT statement could begin with parentheses. Thus,
> (SELECT a from foo) order by a;
> fails.
Um, as a general rule that's not an acceptable limitation. Consider
(SELECT foo EXCEPT SELECT bar) INTERSECT SELECT baz;
Without parens this will mean something quite different, since
INTERSECT has higher precedence than EXCEPT.
Also, a leading paren is clearly legal according to SQL92 --- trace
for example the productions
<direct select statement: multiple rows>
<query expression>
<non-join query expression>
<non-join query term>
<non-join query primary> ::=
<left paren> <non-join query expression> <right paren>
(UNION/EXCEPT structures are <non-join query expression> in this
hierarchy.)
The reason that making this grammar yacc-compatible is so hard is
precisely that leading parens must sometimes be part of the SELECT
structure, whereas extraneous parens need to be kept out of it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-28 05:15:40 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] A rare error |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2000-10-28 04:12:59 | Re: Can't import date using copy |