On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 01:14:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Also, it strikes me that we could significantly reduce, maybe even fully
> >> eliminate, the funny behaviors around the existing base_yylex()
> >> substitutions if we made them use the same idea, ie replace the leading
> >> token with something special but keep the second token's separate
> >> identity. Unless somebody sees a hole in this idea, I'll probably go
> >> do that and then come back to the precedence issues.
>
> > IIRC that's exactly what the earlier patch for this did.
>
> Right, see d809fd0008a2e26de463f47b7aba0365264078f3
Where are we on this?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
