Re: [HACKERS] grammer/keywords/shift/reduce conflicts

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas G. Lockhart
Тема Re: [HACKERS] grammer/keywords/shift/reduce conflicts
Дата
Msg-id 34F5015D.30E6F2C6@alumni.caltech.edu
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на grammer/keywords/shift/reduce conflicts  (Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> well, by putting TRANSACTION and ORDER in the ColID grammer, I seem to
> have introduced some shift/reduce and reduce/reduce conflicts.. will
> the grammer work?  What are your thoughts on using these as column
> identifiers?  If they aren't going to end up usable I certainly won't
> use them as table/field names.. (order sounds like a really bad idea)

Yup. I think that the conflicts mean that there now would be ambiguous
grammar. So, if you stumble across just the right statement and order of
words, you may not get what you expected, and not be able to get what you
want. Both "transaction" and "order" are pretty clearly SQL-ish words, so
I wouldn't bother trying to make them work in other contexts...

                                  - Tom


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] mode of libs
Следующее
От: jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] SELECT currval('SEQ') broken?