Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 23:39 +0800, William ZHANG wrote:
>> Maybe you can fix it like UNIONJOIN.
> Indeed, that is one option.
Not any more ;-)
> It would be unfortunate to revert the change, but I doubt the overhead
> is very significant. Does anyone have any better suggestions for how to
> resolve the problem? (My Bison-foo is weak, I have to confess...)
Worst case is we promote WITH to a fully reserved word. While I don't
normally care for doing that, it *is* a reserved word per SQL99, and
offhand I don't see likely scenarios for someone using "with" as a table
or column or function name. (Anyone know of a language in which "with"
is a noun or verb?)
A quick look at the grammar suggests that the key problem is the
opt_timezone production --- it might be that if we removed that in
favor of spelling out the alternatives at the call sites, the conflict
would go away. bison-fu is all about postponing shift/reduce decisions
until you've seen enough to be sure ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
