Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
> čt 6. 1. 2022 v 16:59 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> napsal:
>> How could the SQL parser have a problem with it, if "in" is currently
>> never followed by "." (dot)?
> you can check it. It is true, so IN is usually followed by "(", but until
> check I am not able to say if there will be an unwanted shift or collision
> or not.
Even if it works today, we could be letting ourselves in for future
trouble. The SQL standard is a moving target, and they could easily
standardize some future syntax involving IN that creates a problem here.
I think we already have two perfectly satisfactory answers:
* qualify parameters with the function name to disambiguate them;
* use the ALIAS feature to create an internal, shorter name.
I see no problem here that is worth locking ourselves into unnecessary
syntax assumptions to fix.
regards, tom lane
