Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> 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?
It's done as far as seemed reasonable to push it.
regards, tom lane
