|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I believe it's actually "lower than Op", and since POSTFIXOP is gone
> it doesn't seem to matter how low it is. In fact, I found that the
> lines with INDENT and UNBOUNDED now work as the lowest precedence
> declarations. Maybe that's worth something?
> Following on Peter E.'s example upthread, GENERATED can be removed
> from precedence, and I also found the same is true for PRESERVE and
Now that the main patch is pushed, I went back to revisit this precedence
issue. I'm afraid to move the precedence of IDENT as much as you suggest
here. The comment for opt_existing_window_name says that it's expecting
the precedence of IDENT to be just below that of Op. If there's daylight
in between, that could result in funny behavior for use of some of the
unreserved words with other precedence levels in this context.
However, I concur that we ought to be able to remove the explicit
precedences for GENERATED, NULL_P, PRESERVE, and STRIP_P, so I did that.
An interesting point is that it's actually possible to remove the
precedence declaration for IDENT itself (at least, that does not
create any bison errors; I did not do any behavioral testing).
I believe what we had that for originally was to control the precedence
behavior of the "target_el: a_expr IDENT" rule, and now that that
rule doesn't end with IDENT, its behavior isn't governed by that.
But I think we're best off to keep the precedence assignment, as
a place to hang the precedences of PARTITION etc.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2020-09-19 20:19:05||Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."|
|Previous Message||Denis Gantsev||2020-09-19 18:58:59||Re: Feature proposal for psql|