| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| Date: | 2013-02-20 08:11:18 |
| Message-ID: | 23244.1361347878@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> When I went to do this, I hit a shift/reduce conflict, because with
> TABLE being optional it couldn't tell whether:
> TRUNCATE MATERIALIZED VIEW x, y, z;
> ... was looking for five relations or three. That goes away with
> MATERIALIZED escalated to TYPE_FUNC_NAME_KEYWORD. Is that OK?
Not really. I would much rather see us not bother with this pedantic
syntax than introduce an even-partially-reserved word.
Having said that, I don't think I believe your analysis of why this
doesn't work. The presence or absence of commas ought to make the
syntax non-ambiguous, I would think. Maybe you just factored the
grammar wrong.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-02-20 10:31:54 | pgsql: Fix yet another typo in comment. |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-02-20 00:07:08 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-02-20 09:02:07 | Re: 9.2.3 crashes during archive recovery |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2013-02-20 08:01:15 | Re: 9.2.3 crashes during archive recovery |