Re: Some surprising precedence behavior in PG's grammar - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Some surprising precedence behavior in PG's grammar
Date
Msg-id 22438.1304564580@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Some surprising precedence behavior in PG's grammar  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Some surprising precedence behavior in PG's grammar  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> Isn't there already some gadget which forces postfix operators to be
> discouraged compared to some other interpretation in other cases?

Yeah.  I'm not unhappy with the current grammar's behavior in this case.
What's bothering me is that the implementation seems likely to create
surprising/unexpected behaviors after future grammar changes.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: Enhancing online recovery in SR mode
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Some surprising precedence behavior in PG's grammar