Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTingBDP9TLssmTdUQw-FwZiur51UuhQhocJ5Awv7@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: is syntax columname(tablename) necessary still?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2010/8/9 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: >> I am working on Grouping Sets support. The first issue is "cube" >> keyword. Contrib module "cube" define a few functions "cube". So if we >> want to continue in support this function, then "cube" have to be a >> unreserved keyword. But then we have a gram conflict with mentioned >> obsolete syntax. I am thinking so after removing add_missing_from this >> syntax is useless. Without this feature we can clean a gramatic. > > That's a documented and useful feature. It's not going away. Even > if it did go away, removing it wouldn't do a thing to solve grammar > problems, because the grammar isn't involved in that. This isn't a SQL feature and it coming from old times like "missing from". Without this we can little bit simplify ParseFuncOrColumn. But I don't know, if this can be a significant win. It is just obsolete. Regards Pavel > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: