| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(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? |
| Date: | 2020-09-18 18:34:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZgxFYL-7SdJr3bMnJg-Bxras-JHedh6dOt4A6JOtusww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> After re-reading the description of pg_get_keywords, I was reminded that
> what it outputs now is intended to provide both a machine-friendly
> description of the keyword category ("catcode") and a human-friendly
> description ("catdesc"). So we really should do likewise for the
> label property. What I now propose is to add two output columns:
>
> barelabel bool (t or f, obviously)
> baredesc text ("can be bare label" or "requires AS", possibly localized)
That might be over-engineered in a vacuum, but it seems like it may be
cleaner to stick with the existing precedent than to diverge from it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-18 19:31:18 | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-18 18:11:37 | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |