Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> While we can certainly hack it by something along the lines of not
>> recognizing INTO when the first token was IMPORT, the whole thing
>> seems awfully messy and fragile. And it will certainly break again
>> the next time somebody decides that INTO is le mot juste in some new
>> SQL command. I wish we could think of a safer, more future-proof
>> solution. I have no idea what that would be, though, short of
>> deprecating INTO altogether.
> This is a natural consequence of having two
> almost-but-not-quite-the-same grammars handing the same shared
> language. There are a similar set of annoyances compiling C with a
> C++ compiler as we all know. In a perfect world, SQL procedural
> extensions would be a proper superset and we'd have *one* grammar
> handling everything. Among other niceties this would make moving
> forward with stored procedures a much simpler discussion. Well, C'est
> la vie :-D.
Yeah, I was just belly-aching ;-). Not much choice in the short term.
Fix pushed.
regards, tom lane