Re: [BUGS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary"
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZebb5-8cnoTdNnCz3=AsqrFkzTuoK2FZAEbe3+rnF42w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary"
Re: [BUGS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" Re: [BUGS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of mar jul 05 10:52:06 -0400 2011: >> Hello. >> >> System: PostgreSQL v9.0 Windows XP SP3 >> SQL: COPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary) >> ERROR: syntax error at or near "binary" >> LINE 1: ...OPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary) >> ^ >> >> ********** Error ********** >> >> ERROR: syntax error at or near "binary" >> SQL state: 42601 >> Character: 55 >> >> But if I use 'FORMAT text' or 'FORMAT csv' all is OK. >> >> Suppose this happens because BINARY is not listed in >> "unreserved_keyword" neither in "col_name_keyword parser" parser rules, but >> listed in "type_func_name_keyword" instead. > > That seems pretty unfortunate. Of course, it works if you quote it: > > COPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT "binary") > > I assume it's not in unreserved_keyword because it would cause a > shift/reduce conflict elsewhere. Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which we still support for backwards compatibility with versions < 7.3. We can fix the immediate problem with something like the attached. (a) Should we do that? (b) Should we back-patch it to 9.1 and 9.0? (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say "no", but could be persuaded otherwise.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: