Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTik0JSkKGDn=rrGoq9TY5rwECGCZDei+LDBarMyn@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2010/8/9 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: >>> They name to be type_func_keywords, perhaps, but not fully reserved. >>> And they'd still need that treatment anyway. Even if cube(whatever) >>> can't mean "extract a column called cube from table whatever", it can >>> still mean "call a function called cube on a column called whatever". >> >> look to gram.y, please. >> >> we can use a >> >> GROUP BY CUBE(expr, ..) >> GROUP BY func_name(expr, ..) >> >> so these rules are in conflict, because func_name can have a >> type_func_keywords symbols. So we have to significantly rewrite a >> rules about func call or CUBE and ROLLUP have to be a reserved words. >> There isn't any other possibility. > > I understand that you have to make CUBE and ROLLUP reserved words. > But you would still have to do that even if we changed $SUBJECT. I am not sure if I understand well. yes - CUBE and ROLLUP have to be reserved keywords - and I don't calculate with removing a "obsolete" syntax now. Regards Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise Postgres Company >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: