Hello, Robert.
You wrote:
RH> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Pavel Golub wrote:
>> RH> Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
>> RH> we still support for backwards compatibility with versions < 7.3. We
>> RH> can fix the immediate problem with something like the
Robert Haas writes:
> ... However, if we don't do what I've proposed here,
> then I think 8.4 and 9.0 and probably 9.1 are going to need to stay as
> they are, because...
>> RH> (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy
>> RH> syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Pavel Golub wrote:
> RH> Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
> RH> we still support for backwards compatibility with versions < 7.3. We
> RH> can fix the immediate problem with something like the attached.
>
> This patch is ugly.
Hello, Robert.
You wrote:
RH> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
RH> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of mar jul 05 10:52:06 -0400 2011:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> System: PostgreSQL v9.0 Windows XP SP3
>>> SQL: COPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary)
>>> ERROR: syntax
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> I assume it's not in unreserved_keyword because it would cause a
>>> shift/reduce conflict elsewhere.
>
>> Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient c
On 07/05/2011 11:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
we still support for backwards compatibility with versions< 7.3. We
can fix the immediate problem with something like the attached.
(a) Should we do that?
yes.
(b) Should we
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I assume it's not in unreserved_keyword because it would cause a
>> shift/reduce conflict elsewhere.
> Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
> we still support for backwards compatib
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of mar jul 05 10:52:06 -0400 2011:
>> Hello.
>>
>> System: PostgreSQL v9.0 Windows XP SP3
>> SQL: COPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary)
>> ERROR: syntax error at or near "binary"
>> LINE 1: ...O
Hello, Alvaro.
You wrote:
AH> Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of mar jul 05 10:52:06 -0400 2011:
>> Hello.
>>
>> System: PostgreSQL v9.0 Windows XP SP3
>> SQL: COPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary)
>> ERROR: syntax error at or near "binary"
>> LINE 1: ...OPY "tablename" TO STDOUT
Excerpts from Pavel Golub's message of mar jul 05 10:52:06 -0400 2011:
> Hello.
>
> System: PostgreSQL v9.0 Windows XP SP3
> SQL: COPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary)
> ERROR: syntax error at or near "binary"
> LINE 1: ...OPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary)
>
Hello.
System: PostgreSQL v9.0 Windows XP SP3
SQL: COPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary)
ERROR: syntax error at or near "binary"
LINE 1: ...OPY "tablename" TO STDOUT WITH (FORMAT binary)
^
** Error **
ERROR: syntax erro
11 matches
Mail list logo
