Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
>> This seems to allow a whole lot of unintended and probably uncool things
>> as well. "ORDER BY NOT LIKE", for instance.
> Well, it seemed to me (maybe I'm wrong here/) that "ORDER BY !~~" was
> allowed anyway by the parser, so I cannot see why it should not allow "NOT
> LIKE" as well, even if it does not make sense.
Possibly. The case that I thought was a real bad idea was actually the
one in def_arg --- we don't want that doing any behind-the-scenes
translation of words to other things. The ORDER BY case is just silly.
> Or the rule factorization must be changed. It can also be done.
Yes. I think we must have an all_subselect_ops or similar.
regards, tom lane