On 1/16/21 6:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Vik Fearing <v...@postgresfriends.org> writes: >> On 1/16/21 4:32 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: >>> On 1/16/21 2:02 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >>>> I am in favor of such a change so that we can also accept 1_000_000 >>>> which currently parses as "1 AS _000_000" (which also isn't compliant >>>> because identifiers cannot start with an underscore, but I don't want to >>>> take it that far). >>>> It would also allow us to have 0xdead_beef, 0o_777, and 0b1010_0000_1110 >>>> without most of it being interpreted as an alias. > >>> That would be a nice feature. Is it part of the SQL standard? > >> Yes, all of that is in the standard. > > Really? Please cite chapter and verse. AFAICS in SQL:2011 5.3 <literal>, > a numeric literal can't contain any extraneous characters, just sign, > digits, optional decimal point, and optional exponent. Hex and octal > literals are certainly not there either.
With respect, you are looking at a 10-year-old document and I am not. 5.3 <literal> has since been modified. -- Vik Fearing
