Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?
Date
Msg-id 25204.951749170@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> It seems that allowing something like
>> bit\ varying
>> in the bootstrap scanner will solve the problem where it's being caused.
>> Internal type names should go away, not accumulate. ;)

> I'm not sure that I agree that multi-word character types are required
> internally. Somehow that seems to just push the problem of
> SQL92-specific syntax to another part of the code.

It doesn't push it anywhere: you still have the problem that the parser
expects type names to be single tokens, not multiple tokens, and any
exceptions need to be special-cased in the grammar.  We can handle that
for the few multi-word type names decreed by SQL92.  But allowing
internal type names to be multi-word as well will create more headaches
in other places (even if it doesn't make the grammar ambiguous, which
it well might).  I think the bootstrap scanner would just be the tip of
the iceberg...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Locale support broken in latest snapshots