On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 01:14:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Also, it strikes me that we could significantly reduce, maybe even fully > >> eliminate, the funny behaviors around the existing base_yylex() > >> substitutions if we made them use the same idea, ie replace the leading > >> token with something special but keep the second token's separate > >> identity. Unless somebody sees a hole in this idea, I'll probably go > >> do that and then come back to the precedence issues. > > > IIRC that's exactly what the earlier patch for this did. > > Right, see d809fd0008a2e26de463f47b7aba0365264078f3
Where are we on this? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
