Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:13:39AM +0100, Shay Rojansky wrote: >> Is there a missing line in the operator precedence table in the docs?
> I think the big question is whether AT TIME ZONE is significant enough > to list there because there are many other clauses we could potentially > add there. Comparing the precedence list in the grammar with the doc table, the only omissions I feel bad about are AT and COLLATE. There's a group of keywords that have "almost the same precedence as IDENT" which probably don't need documentation; but these are not in that group. I am, however, feeling a little bit on the warpath about the grammar comments for the SQL/JSON keyword precedences: /* SQL/JSON related keywords */ %nonassoc UNIQUE JSON %nonassoc KEYS OBJECT_P SCALAR VALUE_P %nonassoc WITH WITHOUT Every other case where we're doing this has a para of explanation in the block comment just below here. These not only have no meaningful explanation, they are in the wrong place --- it looks like they are unrelated to the block comment, whereas actually (I think) they are another instance of it. I consider this well below project standard. regards, tom lane