Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote:
>> opt_persistent: PERSISTENT { $$ = TRUE; }
>> | /*EMPTY*/ %prec Op { $$ = FALSE; }
>> ;
>>
>> I am not sure if there are any problems with above change.
> We usually try to avoid operator precedence declarations. They
> sometimes have unforeseen consequences.
Yes. This is not an improvement over factoring out opt_persistent as
I recommended previously.
>> Found one difference with the change is, the command "reset persistent"
>> execution results in different errors with/without change.
>>
>> without change:
>> unrecognized configuration parameter "persistent".
>> with change:
>> syntax error at or near ";"
> ...but this in itself doesn't seem like a problem.
Indeed, this demonstrates why kluging the behavior this way isn't a good
solution. If PERSISTENT is an unreserved word, then you *should* get
the former error, because it's a perfectly valid interpretation of the
command. If you get the latter then PERSISTENT is not acting like an
unreserved word.
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
