On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:41:59AM +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote: > Tom Lane said: > > Agreed, separating out the function-call-with-trailing-declaration > > syntaxes so they aren't considered in FROM and index_elem seems > > like the best compromise. > > > > If we do that for window function OVER clauses as well, can we > > make OVER less reserved? > > Yes. > > At least, I tried it with both OVER and FILTER unreserved and there > were no grammar conflicts (and I didn't have to do anything fancy to > avoid them), and it passed regression with the exception of the > changed error message for window functions in the from-clause. > > So is this the final decision on how to proceed? It seems good to > me, and I can work with David to get it done.
If this is really the direction people want to go, I'm in. Is there some code I can look at? I still submit that having our reserved word ducks in a row in advance is a saner way to go about this, and will work up a patch for that as I have time. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
