Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 5/12/16 6:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So what I've wanted to do for some time is invent a new expression node
>> type that represents any one of these functions and can be reverse-listed
>> in the same format that the input had. The attached proposed patch does
>> that
On 5/12/16 6:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So what I've wanted to do for some time is invent a new expression node
> type that represents any one of these functions and can be reverse-listed
> in the same format that the input had. The attached proposed patch does
> that.
I was experimenting with this
On Thursday, May 12, 2016, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" > writes:
> > On Thursday, May 12, 2016, Tom Lane
> > ');>>
> wrote:
> >> (I'm not particularly in love with the node type name
> >> ValueFunction; anybody got a better idea?)
>
> > SQL99DateTimeFunction (or roughly whenever they w
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2016, Tom Lane > wrote:
>> (I'm not particularly in love with the node type name
>> ValueFunction; anybody got a better idea?)
> SQL99DateTimeFunction (or roughly whenever they were introduced)?
Some of them aren't datetime-related, though. I
On Thursday, May 12, 2016, Tom Lane > wrote:
>
> So what I've wanted to do for some time is invent a new expression node
> type that represents any one of these functions and can be reverse-listed
> in the same format that the input had. The attached proposed patch does
> that. (I'm not particul
I got annoyed again about a minor issue I've complained about before,
and this time decided to do something about it. The issue is that gram.y
translates a number of argument-less SQL constructs, such as CURRENT_DATE,
into very implementation-specific things such as 'now'::text::date. There
are s
