Tom Lane wrote:
>Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
>
>
>>(3) The parser must distinguish between two cases when it sees an
>>unknown word (T_WORD) beginning a statement. The word could be the
>>beginning of a SQL statement (stmt_execsql in the grammar), such as:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>UPDATE ...;
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>or the name of a function in a function call:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>invoke_func(...);
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>The patch currently distinguishes between these cases by looking at the
>>next token -- if it is a left parenthesis, the patch assumes it is a
>>function call, otherwise it assumes it is a SQL statement. Is this the
>>best approach?
>>
>>
>
>That seems fairly unworkable. For example
>
> SELECT (2,3,4);
>
>is valid SQL. Also I'm not sure if you can extend this to cope with
>schema-qualified function names.
>
>
>
>
ISTM that this is being done at the wrong level anyway. I'd like to see
a facility available in our SQL, e.g.
CALL foo();
with the restriction that foo() should be declared to return void. Of
course, that doesn't remove the keyword requirement as Neil wanted, but
doing that would probably require a lot more work - we'd have to make
procedures a whole lot closer to first-class objects.
cheers
andrew
