Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Have you thought further about the upthread suggestion to just borrow
>> SELECT's syntax lock stock and barrel?
> Bison seems to like the productions below. Is this what you had in
> mind? These mostly mimic joined_table and table_ref, stripping out the
> rules that we don't need.
I'd suggest just using the from_list production and then complaining
at runtime if what you get is too complicated. Otherwise, you have
to maintain a duplicate set of productions, and you're going to be
unable to throw anything more informative than "syntax error" when
somebody tries to exceed the implementation limits.
> Note that I had to put back the FOR keyword in there; without the FOR,
> that is "CREATE STATS any_name opt_name_list expr_list FROM" there was
> one shift/reduce conflict, which I tried to solve by splitting
> opt_name_list using two rules (one with "'(' name_list ')'" and one
> without), but that gave rise to two reduce/reduce conflicts, and I didn't
> see any way to deal with them.
That's fine. I was going to suggest using ON after the stats type list
just because it seemed to read better. FOR is about as good.
> (Note that I ended up realizing that stats_type_list is unnecessary
> since we can use name_list.)
Check.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
