From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Harjyot Bagga <hsbagga28.dev@gmail.com>
cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Grammar guidelines in Postgres
In-reply-to: <CA+FYKR-NVQ3tWhBroCeqBLPHzjEjUGUrCWA=_Yxcs6mWFm-7oQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+FYKR-ogq6WnLtc2bKvFx5qr7UK0aYUssowb=F_zOxD0uDFXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ7c6TPUuwEE-Nxr=KF_ziS1nNPmKQx0Vwu1MCMHjBVPV4bWKw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+FYKR-NVQ3tWhBroCeqBLPHzjEjUGUrCWA=_Yxcs6mWFm-7oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Harjyot Bagga <hsbagga28.dev@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 04 Jul 2024 03:56:30 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3411287.1720108915.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:01:55 -0400
Message-ID: <3411288.1720108915@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3411288.1720108915%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Harjyot Bagga <hsbagga28.dev@gmail.com> writes:
> One such suggestion or rule for example is the Postgres does not support
> Postfix operators. So whenever a new feature is introduced developers make
> sure that they do not add a postfix operators in their grammar. Just like
> that are there any other further rules or suggestions compiled by post
> hackers and maintainers?

[ shrug... ]  If you try to re-introduce postfix operators you'll get
a ton of shift-reduce conflicts.  We have a hard rule that such
conflicts are not allowed, even though Bison can be told to ignore
them.  Beyond that, there's not much.

			regards, tom lane