On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of mar jul 05 10:52:06 -0400 2011:
Hello.
System: PostgreSQL v9.0 Windows XP SP3
SQL: COPY tablename TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary)
ERROR: syntax error at or near binary
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I assume it's not in unreserved_keyword because it would cause a
shift/reduce conflict elsewhere.
Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
On 07/05/2011 11:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
we still support for backwards compatibility with versions 7.3. We
can fix the immediate problem with something like the attached.
(a) Should we do that?
yes.
(b) Should we
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I assume it's not in unreserved_keyword because it would cause a
shift/reduce conflict elsewhere.
Hello, Robert.
You wrote:
RH On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
RH alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of mar jul 05 10:52:06 -0400 2011:
Hello.
System: PostgreSQL v9.0 Windows XP SP3
SQL: COPY tablename TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary)
ERROR:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Pavel Golub pa...@microolap.com wrote:
RH Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
RH we still support for backwards compatibility with versions 7.3. We
RH can fix the immediate problem with something like the attached.
This
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
... However, if we don't do what I've proposed here,
then I think 8.4 and 9.0 and probably 9.1 are going to need to stay as
they are, because...
RH (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy
RH syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving
Hello, Robert.
You wrote:
RH On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Pavel Golub pa...@microolap.com wrote:
RH Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
RH we still support for backwards compatibility with versions 7.3. We
RH can fix the immediate problem with something