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
