> On Jun 23, 2026, at 07:08, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 23, 2026, at 00:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>> Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> writes:
>>> See this repro:
>>> ```
>>> evantest=# CREATE SCHEMA s CREATE VIEW begin AS SELECT 1;
>>> evantest-# end;
>>> WARNING: there is no transaction in progress
>>> CREATE SCHEMA
>>> COMMIT
>>> ```
>>
>> Meh. Yeah, you can fool psql by using non-reserved keywords as
>> identifiers. I'm not super excited about adding complexity that
>> resolves specific edge cases of that kind, because there will always
>> be more of them. As an example, this fools both HEAD and the back
>> branches:
>>
>> regression=# create function begin() returns int
>> regression-# begin atomic return 2+2; end;
>> regression-#
>>
>> Is it really likely that anyone will use "begin" as an object name?
>>
>> Having said that, I agree that what psqlscan.l is doing now is quite
>> hokey and maybe we should make it smarter. I don't like the details
>> of your patch too much though. It's too obviously bolted on: the
>> added parsing logic looks nothing like what was there before.
>> Also, I think it can still be fooled by
>>
>> create schema s
>> create function f() ... as $$ function body $$
>> create view begin as ...
>>
>> because you don't reset create_schema_routine_body unless you
>> see "end".
>>
>> What I'd think about doing, if you want to pursue this, is to
>> have a buffer similar to cur_state->identifiers[] but it tracks
>> identifiers starting from the most recent CREATE sub-clause
>> start within CREATE SCHEMA (ie, a non-nested CREATE keyword),
>> and then applies basically the same logic as in the original code
>> to decide if we're within a CREATE FUNCTION sub-clause.
>>
>> Also, you could avoid cluttering other productions by resetting
>> all the new state when identifier_count is zero, in the same place
>> where we reset cur_state->identifiers[] today.
>>
>> It'd likely be appropriate to pull all this logic out of the
>> {identifier} production and put it in a subroutine, just because
>> it's getting unduly complicated.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. I will try to rework the patch along the direction you suggested.
>
Following your suggestion, I moved the "{identifier}" logic into a new helper psqlscan_track_identifier(), and added
“create_schema_identifiers"to PsqlScanStateData to track identifiers from the current top-level CREATE element within
CREATESCHEMA in the same way as the top level “identifiers". I also added a few more test cases.
Please see the attached v2 for details.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
