Re: Add hint for function named "is"
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add hint for function named "is" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoaCt+JdWYfd4BDH-0EiPyBrVxyWFjHJQdvksJB7eKROLA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add hint for function named "is" (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add hint for function named "is"
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I think what is happening >> in the trouble case is that since IS has lower precedence than Op, the >> grammar decides it ought to resolve || as a postfix operator, and then >> it effectively has >> ('x' ||) IS ... >> which leaves noplace to go except IS NULL and other IS-something syntaxes. > > I wonder whether it's really worth keeping postfix operators. They > seem to keep causing these kinds of headaches and I wonder how much > the grammar tables would be simplified by removing them. I've wondered the same thing at other times. The only postfix operator we ship in core is numeric_fac, and frankly it doesn't seem worth it just for that. If we decided that factorial(n) was adequate notation for that case, and that we didn't care about any hypothetical user-defined postfix operators either, I think we simplify or improve a number of things. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: