Re: [HACKERS] parser dilemma - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] parser dilemma
Date
Msg-id 6819.1177261817@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] parser dilemma  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] parser dilemma  (Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-patches
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I think attaching a precedence to the GENERATED keyword is dangerous.

> Especially when we have a good workaround which would just require use
> of ()  around certain postfix-operator expressions.

Yeah, I'm leaning to the idea that removing postfix operators from
b_expr is the least bad solution.

One thing that would have to be looked at is the rules in ruleutils.c
for suppressing "unnecessary" parentheses when reverse-listing
parsetrees.  It might be safest to just never suppress them around a
postfix operator.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Some further performance tweaks for planning large inheritance
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Some further performance tweaks for planning large inheritance