Re: PostGIS Integration - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PostGIS Integration
Date
Msg-id 7784.1075880880@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostGIS Integration  (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
Responses Re: PostGIS Integration
List pgsql-hackers
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
>> Those two cases are not hard, because in those scenarios the parser
>> knows it is expecting a type specification.  The real problem is this
>> syntax for typed literals:
>> typename 'string'

> Just disallow that particular case for custom types :P

Well, maybe we could --- comments?  Tom Lockhart went to some lengths to
support that, but now that he's gafiated we could perhaps rethink it.
AFAICS the SQL spec only requires this syntax for certain built-in types.
Tom wanted to generalize that to all datatypes that Postgres supports,
and that seems like a reasonable goal ... but if it prevents getting to
other reasonable goals then we ought to think twice.

> Will this work:  'string'::typename

Yes, since the :: cues the parser to expect a typename next.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: PostGIS Integration
Next
From: Koichi Suzuki
Date:
Subject: Re: PITR Dead horse?