Tom, Thanks for the feedback.
20MB messages to the list aren't that friendly. Please don't do that > again, unless asked to. > Apologies, I didn't realize it was so large until after it was sent. At any rate, it won't happen again. > FWIW, the above syntax is a nonstarter, at least unless we're willing to > make POLICY a reserved word (hint: we're not). The reason is that the > ADD/DROP COLUMN forms consider COLUMN to be optional, meaning that the > column name could directly follow ADD; and the column type name, which > could also be just a plain identifier, would directly follow that. So > there's no way to resolve the ambiguity with one token of lookahead. > This actually isn't just bison being stupid: in fact, you simply > cannot tell whether > > ALTER TABLE tab ADD POLICY varchar(42); > > is an attempt to add a column named "policy" of type varchar(42), or an > attempt to add a policy named "varchar" with quals "42". > Ok. Make sense and I was afraid that was the case. Thanks, Adam -- Adam Brightwell - adam.brightw...@crunchydatasolutions.com Database Engineer - www.crunchydatasolutions.com