"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> [ "CREATE OPERATOR testbit" is accepted ]
Not only that, but it looks like you can create aggregate functions and
types that have operator-like names :-(. Someone was way too eager to
save a production or two, I think:
DefineStmt: CREATE def_type def_name definition { ... } ;
def_type: OPERATOR { $$ = OPERATOR; } | TYPE_P { $$ =
TYPE_P;} | AGGREGATE { $$ = AGGREGATE; } ;
def_name: PROCEDURE { $$ = "procedure"; } | JOIN { $$ =
"join";} | all_Op { $$ = $1; } | ColId { $$ =
$1;} ;
Seems to me that this should be simplified down to
CREATE OPERATOR all_Op ...
CREATE TYPE ColId ...
CREATE AGGREGATE ColId ...
Any objections? Has anyone got an idea why PROCEDURE and JOIN are
special-cased here? PROCEDURE, at least, could be promoted from
ColLabel to ColId were it not offered as an alternative to ColId here.
> Now we have a big problem, as the DROP OPERATOR command cannot delete the
> illegally named operator.
Just remove it by DELETEing the row from pg_operator.
regards, tom lane
