Re: Missing docs on AT TIME ZONE precedence? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Shay Rojansky
Subject Re: Missing docs on AT TIME ZONE precedence?
Date
Msg-id CADT4RqDzx9JYiV9qzVZzNdVS7kzTKdPrqXU05U+9g03BX4hQsA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Missing docs on AT TIME ZONE precedence?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>> Is there a missing line in the operator precedence table in the docs?
>
> I think the big question is whether AT TIME ZONE is significant enough
> to list there because there are many other clauses we could potentially
> add there.

Just to give more context, I'm a maintainer on Entity Framework Core (the .NET ORM), and this caused the provider to generate incorrect SQL etc.

If you decide to not have a comprehensive operator precedence table (though I do hope you do), I'd at least amend the "any other operator" and "all other native and user-defined operators" to clearly indicate that some operators aren't listed and have undocumented precedences, so implementers can at least be aware and test the unlisted ones etc.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: libpq: add a possibility to not send D(escribe) when executing a prepared statement
Next
From: Dmitry Dolgov
Date:
Subject: Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15