Message-ID: <001501c2b805$b8d59eb0$0600a8c0@rpopescu>
From: "Radu-Adrian Popescu" <radu.popescu@aldratech.com>
To: "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>,
	"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Achilleus Mantzios" <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>,
	<pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
References: <20030109085635.I92199-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
	<5570.1042132635@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: SQL function parse error ? 
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 19:37:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nice to see that things are starting to move.
I was wandering however whether I've succeeded in making a point.

Regards, 
=====
Radu-Adrian Popescu
CSA, DBA, Developer
Aldratech Ltd.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [SQL] SQL function parse error ? 


Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
> Although the rules could be similar to those for + and - at the end of
> operator strings (no $ at the end of an operator unless it contains
> characters not normally in SQL92 operators).  I'm not sure that
> behavior is sensible either, but if someone wanted to
> do it for their own installation it's about a 2 line patch.

It could be done that way.  But given that "$" already has one weird
special case in the operator name rules (ie, it can't be the only
character of an operator name), I feel that we'd be making things overly
complicated.

The proposal back in Aug 2001 was to remove "$" from the set of operator
name characters altogether (which would allow us to use it in
identifiers instead, improving Oracle compatibility).  I originally
objected to that idea on backwards-compatibility grounds, but I'm
leaning more and more to the view that it's the right thing to do.

I've re-opened the thread on pgsql-hackers about this, and we'll see
whether any consensus emerges this time.

regards, tom lane