I wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> If we do need a precedence setting for NULL_P, then I think it should >> probably be on its own and not sharing one with IS.
> Yeah, I was thinking that too. If we put %prec on the IS [NOT] NULL > productions then there is no need for NULL_P to have exactly its current > precedence; anything above POSTFIXOP would preserve the current behavior > in the DEFAULT ... NULL case. (And if we decided we wanted to flip that > behavior, anything below POSTFIXOP would do that.) On reflection I decided that the best quick-fix is to put NULL into the list of keywords that are already precedence-grouped with IDENT. That at least makes sure that it has precedence behavior equivalent to any plain old non-keyword. If you can find a better fix, maybe we could apply it to the other cases mentioned there as well. > BTW, I wonder why NOTNULL and ISNULL have their own precedence levels, > rather than being made to act exactly like IS [NOT] NULL ... Is anybody up for changing that, or should we leave well enough alone? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers