Fabien COELHO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> This seems to allow a whole lot of unintended and probably uncool things >> as well. "ORDER BY NOT LIKE", for instance.
> Well, it seemed to me (maybe I'm wrong here/) that "ORDER BY !~~" was > allowed anyway by the parser, so I cannot see why it should not allow "NOT > LIKE" as well, even if it does not make sense. Possibly. The case that I thought was a real bad idea was actually the one in def_arg --- we don't want that doing any behind-the-scenes translation of words to other things. The ORDER BY case is just silly. > Or the rule factorization must be changed. It can also be done. Yes. I think we must have an all_subselect_ops or similar. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings