Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near binary
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 LINE 1: ...OPY tablename TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary) ^ ** Error ** ERROR: syntax error at or near binary SQL state: 42601 Character: 55 But if I use 'FORMAT text' or 'FORMAT csv' all is OK. Suppose this happens because BINARY is not listed in unreserved_keyword neither in col_name_keyword parser parser rules, but listed in type_func_name_keyword instead. That seems pretty unfortunate. Of course, it works if you quote it: COPY tablename TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary) 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 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? (b) Should we back-patch it to 9.1 and 9.0? (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say no, but could be persuaded otherwise.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company allow-copy-format-binary.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes 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 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? That seems like a horrid crock ... 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
Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near binary
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 back-patch it to 9.1 and 9.0? yes. (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say no, but could be persuaded otherwise.) I'm inclined to say yes, but mainly because it's just old cruft. I don't expect to be able,say, to load a pre-7.3 dump into a modern Postgres. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near binary
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. 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? That seems like a horrid crock ... Do you have something else to propose? It's a crock we have used elsewhere, so there is some precedent. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near binary
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: syntax error at or near binary LINE 1: ...OPY tablename TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary) ^ ** Error ** ERROR: syntax error at or near binary SQL state: 42601 Character: 55 But if I use 'FORMAT text' or 'FORMAT csv' all is OK. Suppose this happens because BINARY is not listed in unreserved_keyword neither in col_name_keyword parser parser rules, but listed in type_func_name_keyword instead. That seems pretty unfortunate. Of course, it works if you quote it: COPY tablename TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary) I assume it's not in unreserved_keyword because it would cause a shift/reduce conflict elsewhere. 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 patch is ugly. Sorry, Robert, but it's true. RH (a) Should we do that? RH (b) Should we back-patch it to 9.1 and 9.0? RH (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy RH syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the RH workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say no, but could be RH persuaded otherwise.) +1 for this. Pre-7.3 syntax is dead in fact for many years. -- With best wishes, Pavel mailto:pa...@gf.microolap.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near binary
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 patch is ugly. Sorry, Robert, but it's true. No hard feelings here. If you, as the reporter of the problem, don't feel that it's serious enough to warrant back-patching a fix, then I'm not going to insist. 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 that keyword? (Given that the RH workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say no, but could be RH persuaded otherwise.) +1 for this. Pre-7.3 syntax is dead in fact for many years. ...this is not something we're going to back-patch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near binary
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 that keyword? (Given that the RH workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say no, but could be RH persuaded otherwise.) +1 for this. Pre-7.3 syntax is dead in fact for many years. ...this is not something we're going to back-patch. Given the lack of prior complaints, and the simplicity of the double-quote workaround, I feel little need to have a back-patchable fix. 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
Re: [BUGS] [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near binary
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 like the attached. This patch is ugly. Sorry, Robert, but it's true. RH No hard feelings here. If you, as the reporter of the problem, don't RH feel that it's serious enough to warrant back-patching a fix, then I'm RH not going to insist. However, if we don't do what I've proposed here, RH then I think 8.4 and 9.0 and probably 9.1 are going to need to stay as RH they are, because... RH (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy RH syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the RH workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say no, but could be RH persuaded otherwise.) +1 for this. Pre-7.3 syntax is dead in fact for many years. RH ...this is not something we're going to back-patch. Patches needed for 9.0 and 9.1 only, because this is new format comparing with 8.x -- With best wishes, Pavel mailto:pa...@gf.microolap.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
