Thanks for checking, Itiel. The only other thing to check is whether “-1” is parsed as a single numeric literal or as unary “-“ applied to the numeric literal “1”. I don’t recall what Calcite does.
> On Oct 5, 2022, at 3:43 AM, Itiel Sadeh <iti...@sqreamtech.com.INVALID> wrote: > > From the following operator precedence table: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-syntax-lexical.html#SQL-PRECEDENCE , > it looks like Calcite is consistent with Postgresql. > > Thanks for the response. > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 6:52 AM Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Infix cast comes from Postgres. Can someone find a table of operator >> precedence in Postgres? Perhaps write a test case involving operators with >> slightly higher and lower precedence, so we can check that Calcite is >> consistent. >> >>> On Oct 4, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Itiel Sadeh <iti...@sqreamtech.com.INVALID> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I've encountered weird parsing of infix cast with the babel parser, where >>> given the >>> following query: >>> SELECT -1 :: INT FROM t; >>> It will parse it as >>> UNARY_MINUS( CAST( 1 AS INT )), >>> while i've expected it to be >>> CAST(-1 AS INT) >>> >>> As i've looked at the code I saw that the precedence of the INFIX_CAST is >>> 94, and the precedence of the UNARY_MINUS is 80. >>> >>> Is there a reason for the INFIX_CAST's precedence to be that high? Other >>> binary operators such as BINARY_PLUS have precedence of 40. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Itiel >> >>
