Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option

>>>>> "Alvaro" == Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:

Alvaro> It turns out that the SQL standard is much more limited in what
Alvaro> it will accept there. But our grammar (what we'll accept for
Alvaro> the ancient LIMIT clause) is very lenient -- it'll take just
Alvaro> any expression. I thought about reducing that to NumericOnly
Alvaro> for FETCH FIRST .. WITH TIES, but then I have to pick: 1)
Alvaro> gram.y fails to compile because of a reduce/reduce conflict, or
Alvaro> 2) also restricting FETCH FIRST .. ONLY to NumericOnly. Neither
Alvaro> of those seemed very palatable.

FETCH FIRST ... ONLY was made _too_ restrictive initially, such that it
didn't allow parameters (which are allowed by the spec); see 1da162e1f.

(That change didn't present a problem for ruleutils, because FETCH FIRST
... ONLY is output as a LIMIT clause instead.)

This needs to be fixed in ruleutils, IMO, not by changing what the
grammar accepts.

--
Andrew.