Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes:
> When I went to do this, I hit a shift/reduce conflict, because with
> TABLE being optional it couldn't tell whether:

> TRUNCATE MATERIALIZED VIEW x, y, z;

> ... was looking for five relations or three.  That goes away with
> MATERIALIZED escalated to TYPE_FUNC_NAME_KEYWORD.  Is that OK?

Not really.  I would much rather see us not bother with this pedantic
syntax than introduce an even-partially-reserved word.

Having said that, I don't think I believe your analysis of why this
doesn't work.  The presence or absence of commas ought to make the
syntax non-ambiguous, I would think.  Maybe you just factored the
grammar wrong.

                        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

Reply via email to