| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Ajay Pal <ajay(dot)pal(dot)k(at)gmail(dot)com>, Imran Zaheer <imran(dot)zhir(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |
| Date: | 2026-01-13 16:08:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAExHW5vCpzVUOVjN0akxPoWp8dFxHMQ0+WR_=gkZ+qdxP64Zvw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 3:42 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 18.12.25 10:15, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > I was aware of ecpg and I vaguely remember we fixed something in ECPG
> > to allow : in MATCH statement. Probably following changes in
> > psqlscan.l and pgc.l
> > -self [,()\[\].;\:\+\-\*\/\%\^\<\>\=]
> > +self [,()\[\].;\:\|\+\-\*\/\%\^\<\>\=]
> >
> > Those changes add | after : (and not the : itself) so maybe they are
> > not about supporting : . Do you remember what those are?
>
> These are required to support label disjunctions. If you add one of
> those to the ecpg sqlpgq tests you added, like (c IS customer|customer),
> then it will fail to compile without this change.
>
Ah! I see. Added a test for the same using (c IS customer | customer)
>
> > In ddl.sgml I noticed a seemingly incomplete sentence
> > A property graph is a way to represent database contents, instead of using
> > relational structures such as tables.
>
> Maybe it's clearer like this:
>
> "A property graph is a way to represent database contents, as an
> alternative to the usual (in SQL) approach of representing database
> contents using relational structures such as tables."
WFM. Applied.
>
> > 0002 has extra tests mentioned above. It also removes "TODO: dubious
> > error message" from a comment. I don't see anything dubious in the
> > error message. I think this patch is safe to be merged into 0001.
>
> Hmm, yeah, this might have been a leftover from a different catalog
> structure that resulted in different detail messages from the dependency
> infrastructure. I can't see anything wrong with the current output either.
>
Ok.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2026-01-13 16:09:44 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2026-01-13 16:07:52 | Re: DOCS - Clarify the publication 'publish_via_partition_root' default value. |