Re: [BUGS] COPY .... (FORMAT binary) syntax doesn't work - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [BUGS] COPY .... (FORMAT binary) syntax doesn't work
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nML_ZrR2=ioFH4+edsPz=e7LgHq7e=u0BCd6pXsGidD9vQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUGS] COPY .... (FORMAT binary) syntax doesn't work  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [BUGS] COPY .... (FORMAT binary) syntax doesn't work  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 26 May 2013 17:10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes:

> More readable would be to invent an intermediate nonterminal falling
> between ColId and ColLabel, whose expansion would be "IDENT |
> unreserved_keyword | col_name_keyword | type_func_name_keyword", and
> then replace ColId_or_Sconst with whatever-we-call-that_or_Sconst.
> Any thoughts about a name for that new nonterminal?

Do you think complicating the parser in that way is worth the trouble
for this case? Could that slow down parsing?

We don't actually have to fix it; clearly not too many people are
bothered, since no complaints in 3 years. Documenting 'binary' seems
better.

--Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] COPY .... (FORMAT binary) syntax doesn't work
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]