On 27 May 2013 15:31, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 26 May 2013 17:10, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> More readable would be to invent an intermediate nonterminal falling >>> between ColId and ColLabel, whose expansion would be "IDENT | >>> unreserved_keyword | col_name_keyword | type_func_name_keyword", and >>> then replace ColId_or_Sconst with whatever-we-call-that_or_Sconst. >>> Any thoughts about a name for that new nonterminal? > >> Do you think complicating the parser in that way is worth the trouble >> for this case? Could that slow down parsing? > > It makes the grammar tables a bit larger (1% or so IIRC). There would > be some distributed penalty for that, but probably not much. Of course > there's always the slippery-slope argument about that. > >> We don't actually have to fix it; clearly not too many people are >> bothered, since no complaints in 3 years. Documenting 'binary' seems >> better. > > Well, my thought is there are other cases. For instance: > > regression=# create role binary; > ERROR: syntax error at or near "binary" > LINE 1: create role binary; > ^ > regression=# create user cross; > ERROR: syntax error at or near "cross" > LINE 1: create user cross; > ^ > > If we don't have to treat type_func_name_keywords as reserved in these > situations, shouldn't we avoid doing so?
Seems reasonable argument, so +1. Sorry for delayed reply. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
