> > Why? We could accept anything in the list? i.e.: > > (ident =? value[, ident =? value]*) > > > I don't against this but as far as I've heard there is some > > opposition among PG community against new keywords. Maybe I am wrong. > > the ident is a keyword that can be interpreted later on, not a "reserved > keyword" from a parser perspective, which is the only real issue? > > The parser does not need to know about it, only the command interpreter > which will have to interpret it. AUTOMATIC is a nice parser cue to > introduce such a ident-value list. > > > 2. The existing syntax for declarative partitioning is different to your > > proposal. > > Yep. I think that it was not so good a design choice from a > language/extensibility perspective. > Thank you very much, Fabien. It is clear enough. BTW could you tell me a couple of words about pros and cons of c-code syntax parsing comparing to parsing using gram.y trees? I think both are possible but my predisposition was that we'd better use the later if possible.
Best regards, Pavel Borisov >
