> On 22 Jun 2017, at 17:02, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: >>> While reading I noticed that we allow multiple TO <version> in ALTER >>> EXTENSION >>> UPDATE, and defer throwing a syntax error until command processing. Is >>> there a >>> reason for deferring and not handling it in gram.y directly as in the >>> attached >>> patch since it is in fact a syntax error? It yields a different error >>> message >>> to the user, but makes for easier to read code (IMH-and-biased-O). > >> I think the idea of the current implementation was probably that the >> grammar should leave room to support multiple options in arbitrary >> order at that point in the syntax. I'm not sure whether that's >> something we'll ever actually need, or not. > > It certainly seems plausible to me that we might someday grow additional > options to control the UPDATE,
Fair enough, I was mainly curious about the reasoning, future proofing support for additional options makes perfect sense. > so I'm inclined to reject this patch. I completely agree, I was using the patch to illustrate my question but wasn’t very clear about that. Thanks! cheers ./daniel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
