Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> Can't you keep those words as Sconst or something (DefElems?) until the >> execution phase, so that they don't need to be keywords at all?
> Seems like we could do that, though I'm not convinced that it really > gains us all that much. These are only unreserved keywords, of course, > so they don't impact users the way reserved keywords (of any kind) can. > While there may be some places where we use a string to represent a set > of defined options, I don't believe that's typical -1 for having to write them as string literals; but I think what Alvaro really means is to arrange for the words to just be identifiers in the grammar, which you strcmp against at execution. See for example reloption_list. (Whether you use DefElem as the internal representation is a minor detail, though it might help for making the parsetree copyObject-friendly.) vacuum_option_elem shows another way to avoid making a word into a keyword, although to me that one is more of an antipattern; it'd be better to leave the strcmp to execution, since there's so much other code that does things that way. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers