|From:||Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>|
|To:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: CALL optional in PL/pgSQL|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 27/03/18 03:00, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think this is an actively bad idea. It introduces an inherent ambiguity
>> into the grammar; for instance
>> PERFORM (2);
>> now has two valid interpretations. The only way to resolve that is with
>> heuristics or treating a bunch more words as reserved keywords, neither of
>> which are appetizing. (I didn't look to see which way Peter did it, but
>> his description of his patch as "not very pretty" doesn't fill me with
>> happiness.) And it would likely cause headaches down the road whenever
>> we attempt to add new syntax to plpgsql.
>> I think we should reject the idea.
> Well, the upside would be increased Oracle compatibility. I don't
> think that's worthless.
> I haven't dug deeply into it, but Peter's patch didn't look
> desperately ugly to me at first glance.
I don't much like this either. The ambiguity it introduces in the
grammar is bad. I'll mark this as rejected in the commitfest.
|Next Message||Aleksandr Parfenov||2018-04-05 08:12:56||Re: Flexible configuration for full-text search|
|Previous Message||Konstantin Knizhnik||2018-04-05 08:03:58||Re: Postgres stucks in deadlock detection|