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