Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On 2/23/15 3:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I thought of another possibility:
>>
>> 3. Leave everything as-is but mark the NOT-operator productions as having
>> the precedence of NOT rather than of LIKE etc. This would change the
>> behavior only for the NOT-LIKE-followed-by-< example, and would make the
>> two cases for NOT LIKE consistent though they'd remain inconsistent with
>> LIKE. This behavior seems at least somewhat explainable/documentable
>> ("NOT-foo operators have the precedence of NOT"), whereas what we have
>> seems about impossible to justify.
> I don't like this third option. If we're going to change anything, it
> should be changed so that LIKE and NOT LIKE have the same precedence.
Yeah, I concur. Working on patch to make that happen via token lookahead.
regards, tom lane
