Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
Date
Msg-id AANLkTi=0sYJeJXUgXAmnKK-3NE6vN0M_T4tcg_hSN+9f@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> They name to be type_func_keywords, perhaps, but not fully reserved.
>> And they'd still need that treatment anyway.  Even if cube(whatever)
>> can't mean "extract a column called cube from table whatever", it can
>> still mean "call a function called cube on a column called whatever".
>
> look to gram.y, please.
>
> we can use a
>
> GROUP BY CUBE(expr, ..)
> GROUP BY func_name(expr, ..)
>
> so these rules are in conflict, because func_name can have a
> type_func_keywords symbols. So we have to significantly rewrite a
> rules about func call or CUBE and ROLLUP have to be a reserved words.
> There isn't any other possibility.

I understand that you have to make CUBE and ROLLUP reserved words.
But you would still have to do that even if we changed $SUBJECT.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Surprising dead_tuple_count from pgstattuple
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?