Thomas Lockhart writes:
> > It's not apparent to me that doing this in the ODBC support is simpler
> > or better than the hack Peter put into gram.y.
>
> ?? We have a long standing design policy to not pollute SQL syntax with
> ODBC cruft.
But that doesn't apply in this case because we're augmenting SQL cruft
with ODBC syntax. ;-)
> And we have existing mechanisms to easily enable that, delegating that
> compatibility layer to the ODBC driver where it belongs.
I'm not a great fan of rewriting SQL code behind the scenes, especially
not when it's a trivial case such as this. Moreover, developers of ODBC
applications might wish to test their code in, say, psql. It's not like
we're adding lisp syntax, we're only allowing parentheses after a function
call -- like after all other function calls.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
