On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 00:13 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:53:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Having the supporting code in core does not make much of a difference
> > > otherwise from having it in contrib, does it?
> >
> > Given the nonextensibility of gram.y and keywords.c, it has to be in
> > core to even think about having special syntax :-(
>
> Has anyone ever heard of extensible grammers?
(not specifically answering Martijn...)
The main thought for me on this thread is: Why do we need to invent
*any* grammar to make this work? Why not just use functions?
For PITR we have pg_start_backup() rather than BACKUP START. For
advisory locks we have pg_advisory_lock()
What's wrong with having pg_tsearch_ functions to do everything? There's
nothing wrong with additional catalog tables/columns that are
manipulated by function calls only. We have that already - look at
pg_stat_reset() - no grammar stuff there.
Anybody with an Oracle or SQLServer background is used to seeing system
functions available as function calls; as I've observed above, so are
we. We should keep the grammar clean to allow a very close adherence to
SQL standards, IMHO.
I would like to see Oleg and Teodor's good work come into core, but I
don't want to see bucketfuls of new grammar issues.
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
