On 27/03/18 03:00, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I think this is an actively bad idea. It introduces an inherent ambiguity
into the grammar; for instance
PERFORM (2);
now has two valid interpretations. The only way to resolve that is with
heuristics or treating a bunch more words as reserved keywords, neither of
which are appetizing. (I didn't look to see which way Peter did it, but
his description of his patch as "not very pretty" doesn't fill me with
happiness.) And it would likely cause headaches down the road whenever
we attempt to add new syntax to plpgsql.
I think we should reject the idea.
Well, the upside would be increased Oracle compatibility. I don't
think that's worthless.
I haven't dug deeply into it, but Peter's patch didn't look
desperately ugly to me at first glance.
I don't much like this either. The ambiguity it introduces in the
grammar is bad. I'll mark this as rejected in the commitfest.
- Heikki
