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.


Adam Brightwell -
Database Engineer -

Reply via email to