Thread: Unary % operator is broken in current sources
These used to work:
regression=> select %f.f1 FROM FLOAT8_TBL f;
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "%"
regression=> select f.f1 % FROM FLOAT8_TBL f;
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "from"
This is causing the float8 regress test to fail.
I suspect this has to do with Bruce's recent hacking on operator
associativity.
regards, tom lane
> These used to work:
>
> regression=> select %f.f1 FROM FLOAT8_TBL f;
> ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "%"
> regression=> select f.f1 % FROM FLOAT8_TBL f;
> ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "from"
>
> This is causing the float8 regress test to fail.
>
> I suspect this has to do with Bruce's recent hacking on operator
> associativity.
I see. I see the same problem with / and +:test=> select %f.f1 FROM FLOAT8_TBL f;ERROR: parser: parse error at or
near"%"test=> select /f.f1 FROM FLOAT8_TBL f;ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "/"test=> select +f.f1 FROM
FLOAT8_TBLf;ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "+"
\do % shows:
test=> \do %op|left_arg|right_arg|result |description --+--------+---------+-------+-------------------% |
|float8 |float8 |truncate to integer% |float8 | |float8 |truncate to integer% |int2 |int2 |int2
|modulus % |int2 |int4 |int4 |modulus % |int4 |int2 |int4 |modulus %
|int4 |int4 |int4 |modulus % |numeric |numeric |numeric|modulus (7 rows)
OK, I made the change. It works now with special entries for %4 and 4%
in the grammer, similar to our handling of -4:regression=> select %f.f1 FROM FLOAT8_TBL f;?column?
---------------------0 -34 -1004 -1.2345678901234e+2000
(5 rows)
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> OK, I made the change. It works now with special entries for %4 and 4%
> in the grammer, similar to our handling of -4:
Hmm, is that an adequate solution? Are you sure there are no other
operators like % ?
regards, tom lane
> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > OK, I made the change. It works now with special entries for %4 and 4% > > in the grammer, similar to our handling of -4: > > Hmm, is that an adequate solution? Are you sure there are no other > operators like % ? Not sure. I know I only changed % to have precedence like /. No one is complaining, and I think the problems are restricted to +,-,*,/, and %. Should I fix any of these other ones? -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Not sure. I know I only changed % to have precedence like /. No one is
> complaining, and I think the problems are restricted to +,-,*,/, and %.
> Should I fix any of these other ones?
Right now I think % is the only problem, since it's the only operator
that has all three syntaxes (infix, prefix, postfix):
regression=> select distinct p1.oprname, p1.oprkind, p2.oprkind from
regression-> pg_operator as p1, pg_operator as p2
regression-> where p1.oprname = p2.oprname and p1.oprkind < p2.oprkind;
oprname|oprkind|oprkind
-------+-------+-------
# |b |l
% |b |l
% |b |r
% |l |r
- |b |l
?- |b |l
?| |b |l
@ |b |l
(8 rows)
Having both infix and prefix syntaxes doesn't seem to confuse the
parser --- at least, we have regress tests of both prefix @ and
infix @ (likewise #) and they're not complaining. Probably you need
a postfix syntax plus one or both of the other syntaxes to yield an
ambiguity that will confuse the parser. I haven't tried to track it
down in the grammar, however.
My concern with hacking in a special case for '%' in the grammar
is that we'll need to do it again anytime someone adds an operator
with the right set of syntaxes. It'd be better to understand *why*
the parser is having a hard time with this all of a sudden, and fix it
without reference to any particular operator. Postgres is supposed to
be extensible after all...
regards, tom lane
> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Not sure. I know I only changed % to have precedence like /. No one is > > complaining, and I think the problems are restricted to +,-,*,/, and %. > > Should I fix any of these other ones? > > Right now I think % is the only problem, since it's the only operator > that has all three syntaxes (infix, prefix, postfix): > > regression=> select distinct p1.oprname, p1.oprkind, p2.oprkind from > regression-> pg_operator as p1, pg_operator as p2 > regression-> where p1.oprname = p2.oprname and p1.oprkind < p2.oprkind; > oprname|oprkind|oprkind > -------+-------+------- > # |b |l > % |b |l > % |b |r > % |l |r > - |b |l > ?- |b |l > ?| |b |l > @ |b |l > (8 rows) > > Having both infix and prefix syntaxes doesn't seem to confuse the > parser --- at least, we have regress tests of both prefix @ and > infix @ (likewise #) and they're not complaining. Probably you need > a postfix syntax plus one or both of the other syntaxes to yield an > ambiguity that will confuse the parser. I haven't tried to track it > down in the grammar, however. > > My concern with hacking in a special case for '%' in the grammar > is that we'll need to do it again anytime someone adds an operator > with the right set of syntaxes. It'd be better to understand *why* > the parser is having a hard time with this all of a sudden, and fix it > without reference to any particular operator. Postgres is supposed to > be extensible after all... I can tell you what I think. +,-,*,/,% have special precedence so */ is done before +-. This is causing infix/prefix to break. When % did not behave with precidence like /, it worked fine. So, I would only have to add cases for +,-,/,*. We already have "-" prefix done for negative numbers. Comments on how to proceed? -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> So, I would only have to add cases for +,-,/,*. We already have "-"
> prefix done for negative numbers.
> Comments on how to proceed?
Tom Lockhart probably knows this stuff better than anyone else.
I vote we put the issue on "hold" until he's caught up with his
email ;-)
regards, tom lane