Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(3) The parser must distinguish between two cases when it sees an
unknown word (T_WORD) beginning a statement. The word could be the
beginning of a SQL statement (stmt_execsql in the grammar), such as:
UPDATE ...;
or the name of a function in a function call:
invoke_func(...);
The patch currently distinguishes between these cases by looking at the
next token -- if it is a left parenthesis, the patch assumes it is a
function call, otherwise it assumes it is a SQL statement. Is this the
best approach?
That seems fairly unworkable. For example
SELECT (2,3,4);
is valid SQL. Also I'm not sure if you can extend this to cope with schema-qualified function names.
ISTM that this is being done at the wrong level anyway. I'd like to see a facility available in our SQL, e.g.
CALL foo();
with the restriction that foo() should be declared to return void. Of course, that doesn't remove the keyword requirement as Neil wanted, but doing that would probably require a lot more work - we'd have to make procedures a whole lot closer to first-class objects.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
