Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
Date: 2010-08-09 17:53:54
Message-ID: AANLkTi=0sYJeJXUgXAmnKK-3NE6vN0M_T4tcg_hSN+9f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> They name to be type_func_keywords, perhaps, but not fully reserved.
>> And they'd still need that treatment anyway.  Even if cube(whatever)
>> can't mean "extract a column called cube from table whatever", it can
>> still mean "call a function called cube on a column called whatever".
>
> look to gram.y, please.
>
> we can use a
>
> GROUP BY CUBE(expr, ..)
> GROUP BY func_name(expr, ..)
>
> so these rules are in conflict, because func_name can have a
> type_func_keywords symbols. So we have to significantly rewrite a
> rules about func call or CUBE and ROLLUP have to be a reserved words.
> There isn't any other possibility.

I understand that you have to make CUBE and ROLLUP reserved words.
But you would still have to do that even if we changed $SUBJECT.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Wanner 2010-08-09 18:07:41 Re: dynamically allocating chunks from shared memory
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2010-08-09 17:50:28 Re: Surprising dead_tuple_count from pgstattuple