Alban Hertroys <haramrae@gmail.com> writes:
> On 22 May 2015 at 04:46, Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> wrote:
>> With all that being said, if I were to build a patch, would it be likely
>> to be accepted into core?
> Wouldn't you also need to support similar syntax for octal numbers for
> the patch to be complete? Or are those already supported (ISTR that's
> '077' for decimal 63)?
A patch that made 077 be interpreted as octal would certainly get rejected
out of hand, because that's valid syntax right now and it doesn't mean 63.
A similar objection might be raised to 0x..., as that is also valid
syntax; it's read as 0 followed by an identifier:
regression=# select 0xff;
xff
-----
0
(1 row)
(Yet another place where the fact that AS is optional yields surprising
results...) So there would be a backwards compatibility break here,
and no you can't fix it with a GUC. Still, it might be a small enough
break that we could get away with it. I'm not personally very excited
but other people might be.
Other questions you'd have to think about: what is the data type of
0xffffffff; what do you do with 0xffffffffffffffffffffffff (too big
even for int8). And it'd likely behoove you to check how Microsoft
answers those questions, if you want to point to SQL Server as what's
going to keep you out of standards-compatibility problems. (IOW,
if 0x ever did get standardized, the text might well match what
SQL Server does.)
regards, tom lane
