Re: Sanding down some edge cases for PL/pgSQL reserved words

2. That "has no field" error message is flat-out wrong.  The now-known
way to trigger it has a different cause, and what's more, we simply do
not know at this point whether the malleable record type has such a
field.  So in 0002 below I just changed it to assume that the problem
is a reserved field name.  We might find another way to reach that
failure in future, but I doubt that "has no field" would be the right
thing to say in any case.

The proposed patch is a zero invasive solution. But the question is why we cannot allow plpgsql reserved keywords in recfilds?

There should not be any collisions. Isn't there a better solution to modify plpgsql_yylex instead and allow all keywords after '.' ? Sure. It will be more invasive.

Regards

Pavel

 

This is v19 material at this point, so I'll stick it on the CF queue.

                        regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/18693-65968418890877b4%40postgresql.org