Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
Date
Msg-id 29078.1281363720@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
List pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> I am working on Grouping Sets support. The first issue is "cube"
> keyword. Contrib module "cube" define a few functions "cube". So if we
> want to continue in support this function, then "cube" have to be a
> unreserved keyword. But then we have a gram conflict with mentioned
> obsolete syntax. I am thinking so after removing add_missing_from this
> syntax is useless. Without this feature we can clean a gramatic.

That's a documented and useful feature.  It's not going away.  Even
if it did go away, removing it wouldn't do a thing to solve grammar
problems, because the grammar isn't involved in that.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: review: xml_is_well_formed
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch