Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Chris
Subject Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT
Date
Msg-id 39AB0CCD.42F7B6B5@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
To answer my own question, of course that's no good because there are
constants and other stuff. Another suggestion, could we take the SQL
standards group out the back and have them flogged? :-)

> 
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Chris <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> writes:
> > >> the grammar is just plain not LR(1) unless you
> > >> count UNION JOIN as a single token.
> >
> > > Would it be bad to make UNION JOIN as a single token?
> >
> > That's exactly the solution I'm proposing.  However, it's pretty painful
> > to make the lexer do it directly (consider intervening comments, for
> > example)
> 
> Comments are a pain in the parser. What if something prior to the lexer
> filtered out comments before either the lexer or parser could see them?
> Would it be as easy as s/--.*// before the lexer?


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Date:
Subject: Re: when does CREATE VIEW not create a view?
Next
From: Andrew Selle
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT