Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did you actually test this?
> neilc=# create table t1 (a int, b int);
> CREATE TABLE
> neilc=# update t1 set set a = 500 where set.a > 1000;
> UPDATE 0
I get
regression=# update t1 set set a = 500 where set.a > 1000;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "a"
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did you actually test this?
No, I was just looking at the y.output file to see what would happen.
> neilc=# update t1 set set a = 500 where set.a > 1000;
> UPDATE 0
> (Using essentially the patch you posted.)
[ scratches head... ] That shouldn't have wo
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 13:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The effect of this, as Andrew says, is that in this particular context
> you can't write SET as an alias unless you write AS first.
Did you actually test this?
neilc=# create table t1 (a int, b int);
CREATE TABLE
neilc=# update t1 set set a = 5
Tom Lane wrote:
The effect of this, as Andrew says, is that in this particular context
you can't write SET as an alias unless you write AS first. This is
probably not going to surprise anyone in the UPDATE case, since the
ambiguity inherent in writing
UPDATE foo set SET ...
is pretty
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Presumably the effect in this case would be to prevent anyone from using
> SET as an alias unless there was a preceding AS.
I fooled around with this and found three feasible alternatives.
The simplest thing is:
relation_expr_opt_alias: relation_expr
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:04:14AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
If you don't like relying on file order to resolve this, appropriate
use of %prec would have the same effect (just like for operator
precedence). The output file tell you which way bison went.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:04:14AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >If you don't like relying on file order to resolve this, appropriate
> >use of %prec would have the same effect (just like for operator
> >precedence). The output file tell you which way bison went.
> If we allow shift/reduce or re
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Shift/reduce and reduce/reduce errors still produce valid working
parsers, it's just that bison has to resolve an ambiguity by the
default (shift, otherwise earliest rule wins. maximum munch rule
really).
If you don't like relying on file order to resolve this, a
> Another possibility is to disallow SET here, but not in other places
> where ColId is used. That is, some hack like:
Quick point: If all you want to do if disallow SET here as ColID but
allow SET in other places with a ColId, you don't have to change
anything at all. Just make sure the rule for
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 02:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> relation_expr opt_as ColId
>
> try
>
> relation_expr ColId
> | relation_expr AS ColId
Yeah, I already tried that without success. The no-AS-specified variant
is still ambiguous: given SET following relation_expr, the parser s
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 02:05 -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> I believe the conflict results from the fact that ColId can include SET
> (since it is an unreserved_keyword), but SET might also be the next
> token in the UpdateStmt, and yacc is not capable of distinguishing
> between these two cases. We co
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you see a better fix?
I haven't done any experimentation, but my first instinct would be to
spell out the productions at greater length: instead of
relation_expr opt_as ColId
try
relation_expr ColId
| relation_expr AS ColId
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 01:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The grammar change is the one marginally nontrivial part of the patch,
> and you couldn't be bothered to get it right? Try harder.
:-(
I believe the conflict results from the fact that ColId can include SET
(since it is an unreserved_keyword),
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 00:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should be ColId, not IDENT, per existing alias_clause production.
> That causes a reduce/reduce conflict:
The grammar change is the one marginally nontrivial part of the patch,
and you couldn't be both
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 00:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is wrong:
>
> +relation_expr_opt_alias: relation_expr
> + {
> + $$ = $1;
> + }
> + | relation_expr opt_as IDENT
> +
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Patch applied to HEAD.
This is wrong:
+relation_expr_opt_alias: relation_expr
+ {
+ $$ = $1;
+ }
+ | relation_expr opt_as IDENT
+
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From looking at SQL2003, it seems to me that this syntax is actually
> specified by the standard:
> ::=
> UPDATE [ [ AS ] ]
> SET
> [ WHERE ]
> ::=
> DELETE FROM [ [ AS ] ]
> [ WHERE ]
Interesting, because the AS clause is mo
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 10:42 +0900, Atsushi Ogawa wrote:
> Thanks for comments. I modified the patch.
Patch applied to HEAD.
>From looking at SQL2003, it seems to me that this syntax is actually
specified by the standard:
::=
UPDATE [ [ AS ] ]
SET
[ WHERE ]
::=
DELETE FROM
Thanks for comments. I modified the patch.Tom Lane wrote:> Atsushi Ogawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> > (2)About processing when column identifier of SET clause is specified
> > like 'AAA.BBB'. 'AAA' is a composite column now. When an alias for> > target table is supported, 'AAA' is a composite col
Atsushi Ogawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (2)About processing when column identifier of SET clause is specified
> like 'AAA.BBB'. 'AAA' is a composite column now. When an alias for
> target table is supported, 'AAA' is a composite column or a table.
> How do we distinguish these?
You don't, whic
20 matches
Mail list logo
