Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 26 May 2013 17:10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> More readable would be to invent an intermediate nonterminal falling
>> between ColId and ColLabel, whose expansion would be "IDENT |
>> unreserved_keyword | col_name_keyword | type_func_name_keyword", and
>> then replace ColId_or_Sconst with whatever-we-call-that_or_Sconst.
>> Any thoughts about a name for that new nonterminal?
> Do you think complicating the parser in that way is worth the trouble
> for this case? Could that slow down parsing?
It makes the grammar tables a bit larger (1% or so IIRC). There would
be some distributed penalty for that, but probably not much. Of course
there's always the slippery-slope argument about that.
> We don't actually have to fix it; clearly not too many people are
> bothered, since no complaints in 3 years. Documenting 'binary' seems
> better.
Well, my thought is there are other cases. For instance:
regression=# create role binary;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "binary"
LINE 1: create role binary; ^
regression=# create user cross;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "cross"
LINE 1: create user cross; ^
If we don't have to treat type_func_name_keywords as reserved in these
situations, shouldn't we avoid doing so?
regards, tom lane
