| From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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? |
| Date: | 2020-08-28 08:44:54 |
| Message-ID: | CACPNZCt0PabbtDid7tUXuWTpDCQWpT2UwCMuGmYkN1GzSw+NbQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:57 PM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't have any problem with the changes you made in your patch, but building on your changes I also found that the following cleanup causes no apparent problems:
>
> -%nonassoc UNBOUNDED /* ideally should have same precedence as IDENT */
> -%nonassoc IDENT PARTITION RANGE ROWS GROUPS PRECEDING FOLLOWING CUBE ROLLUP
> +%nonassoc UNBOUNDED IDENT
> +%nonassoc PARTITION RANGE ROWS GROUPS PRECEDING FOLLOWING CUBE ROLLUP
Thinking about this some more, I don't think we don't need to do any
precedence refactoring in order to apply the functional change of
these patches. We could leave that for follow-on patches once we
figure out the best way forward, which could take some time.
--
John Naylor https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-08-28 08:48:05 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2020-08-28 08:43:58 | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |