| From: | Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Missing docs on AT TIME ZONE precedence? |
| Date: | 2023-11-26 17:45:46 |
| Message-ID: | CADT4RqDzx9JYiV9qzVZzNdVS7kzTKdPrqXU05U+9g03BX4hQsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Is there a missing line in the operator precedence table in the docs?
>
> I think the big question is whether AT TIME ZONE is significant enough
> to list there because there are many other clauses we could potentially
> add there.
Just to give more context, I'm a maintainer on Entity Framework Core (the
.NET ORM), and this caused the provider to generate incorrect SQL etc.
If you decide to not have a comprehensive operator precedence table (though
I do hope you do), I'd at least amend the "any other operator" and "all
other native and user-defined operators" to clearly indicate that some
operators aren't listed and have undocumented precedences, so implementers
can at least be aware and test the unlisted ones etc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2023-11-26 17:52:59 | Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-11-26 17:13:45 | Re: WIP: libpq: add a possibility to not send D(escribe) when executing a prepared statement |