Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Also, it strikes me that we could significantly reduce, maybe even fully
>> eliminate, the funny behaviors around the existing base_yylex()
>> substitutions if we made them use the same idea, ie replace the leading
>> token with something special but keep the second token's separate
>> identity. Unless somebody sees a hole in this idea, I'll probably go
>> do that and then come back to the precedence issues.
> IIRC that's exactly what the earlier patch for this did.
Right, see d809fd0008a2e26de463f47b7aba0365264078f3
regards, tom lane