Re: [HACKERS] note about syntax for fillfactor patch
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > # CREATE TABLE test1 (i int) WITH (oids=0); > CREATE TABLE > # CREATE TABLE test2 (i int) WITH (oids=false); > ERROR: syntax error at or near "false" > LINE 1: CREATE TABLE test2 (i int) WITH (oids=false); > ^ Yeah, I noticed that. I think it's easily fixable though --- the production for def_arg just needs a bit of extension. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] note about syntax for fillfactor patch
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I propose that we change the syntax to be > > WITH OIDS > | WITHOUT OIDS > | WITH (definition) > | /*EMPTY*/ > > and say that if you want to specify both OIDS and another option you > have to write "oids" or "oids=false" in the definition list. Yeah, it sounds good. However, the syntax "oids=false" is not available for a limitation of the current parser; it can recognize only numerics or strings as a value. So oids=0/1 or oids='false'/'true' are ok, but false/true literals are syntax error. # CREATE TABLE test1 (i int) WITH (oids=0); CREATE TABLE # CREATE TABLE test2 (i int) WITH (oids=false); ERROR: syntax error at or near "false" LINE 1: CREATE TABLE test2 (i int) WITH (oids=false); ^ # CREATE TABLE test3 (i int) with (oids='false'); ERROR: oids requires a boolean value (*) We can resolve this by adding a T_String handler to defGetBoolean(). Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] note about syntax for fillfactor patch
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 12:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I propose that we change the syntax to be > > WITH OIDS > | WITHOUT OIDS > | WITH (definition) > | /*EMPTY*/ > > and say that if you want to specify both OIDS and another option you > have to write "oids" or "oids=false" in the definition list. Agreed. Much cleaner. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] note about syntax for fillfactor patch
Tom Lane wrote: > The latter seems seriously grotty: it forces the user to remember an Agreed. > I propose that we change the syntax to be > > WITH OIDS > | WITHOUT OIDS > | WITH (definition) > | /*EMPTY*/ > > and say that if you want to specify both OIDS and another option you > have to write "oids" or "oids=false" in the definition list. > > This gets rid of the hazard that someone might try to specify > conflicting oids options in the hardwired part of the syntax and > in the definition list, and lets the hardwired syntax be deprecated > and perhaps someday removed. > > Any objections? Sounds good. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
[HACKERS] note about syntax for fillfactor patch
I see that the just-applied fillfactor patch has changed the syntax
for CREATE TABLE to replace
OptWithOids:
WITH OIDS{ $$ = MUST_HAVE_OIDS; }
| WITHOUT OIDS { $$ = MUST_NOT_HAVE_OIDS; }
| /*EMPTY*/ { $$ = DEFAULT_OIDS; }
;
with
OptWith:
WITH OIDS { $$ =
list_make1(defWithOids(true)); }
| WITHOUT OIDS { $$ =
list_make1(defWithOids(false)); }
| WITH definition { $$ = $2; }
| WITH OIDS WITH definition { $$ = lappend($4,
defWithOids(true)); }
| WITHOUT OIDS WITH definition { $$ = lappend($4,
defWithOids(false)); }
| /*EMPTY*/ { $$ = NIL; }
;
The latter seems seriously grotty: it forces the user to remember an
arbitrary choice about the order in which the two WITHs can be written,
and using the same WITH keyword to introduce two different things seems
ugly. However, the implementation is such that OIDS can also be
specified in the "definition" option list:
regression=# create table foot(f1 int) with (oids, fillfactor);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# create table foot0(f1 int) with (oids=0, fillfactor);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# select relname,relhasoids from pg_class order by oid desc limit 2;
relname | relhasoids
-+
foot0 | f
foot| t
(2 rows)
regression=#
(hm, I wonder why it's not complaining about the bogus fillfactor
specification...)
I propose that we change the syntax to be
WITH OIDS
| WITHOUT OIDS
| WITH (definition)
| /*EMPTY*/
and say that if you want to specify both OIDS and another option you
have to write "oids" or "oids=false" in the definition list.
This gets rid of the hazard that someone might try to specify
conflicting oids options in the hardwired part of the syntax and
in the definition list, and lets the hardwired syntax be deprecated
and perhaps someday removed.
Any objections?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
