On 1/16/21 6:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> writes:
>> On 1/16/21 4:32 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>>> On 1/16/21 2:02 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>>> I am in favor of such a change so that we can also accept 1_000_000
>>>> which currently parses as "1 AS _000_000" (which also isn't compliant
>>>> because identifiers cannot start with an underscore, but I don't want to
>>>> take it that far).
>>>> It would also allow us to have 0xdead_beef, 0o_777, and 0b1010_0000_1110
>>>> without most of it being interpreted as an alias.
>
>>> That would be a nice feature. Is it part of the SQL standard?
>
>> Yes, all of that is in the standard.
>
> Really? Please cite chapter and verse. AFAICS in SQL:2011 5.3 <literal>,
> a numeric literal can't contain any extraneous characters, just sign,
> digits, optional decimal point, and optional exponent. Hex and octal
> literals are certainly not there either.
With respect, you are looking at a 10-year-old document and I am not.
5.3 <literal> has since been modified.
--
Vik Fearing
