Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> Normally I'd push hard to try and get some solution that's sufficiently
> generic to allow user-defined functions to make use of the feature. But
> I think the SQL spec people have managed to make that literally
> impossible in this case, what with the FROM keyword appearing in the
> middle of a production and not followed by anything sufficiently
> distinctive to even use for extra token lookahead.
Yeah. Is there any appetite for a "Just Say No" approach? That is,
refuse to implement the spec's syntax on the grounds that it's too
brain-dead to even consider, and instead provide some less random,
more extensibility-friendly way to accomplish the same thing?
The FROM FIRST/LAST bit seems particularly badly thought through,
because AFAICS it is flat out ambiguous with a normal FROM clause
immediately following the window function call. The only way to
make it not so would be to make FIRST and LAST be fully reserved,
which is neither a good idea nor spec-compliant.
In short, there's a really good case to be made here that the SQL
committee is completely clueless about syntax design, and so we
shouldn't follow this particular pied piper.
> ... This patch would make lead / lag /
> first_value / last_value / nth_value syntactically "special" while not
> actually reserving them (beyond having them in unreserved_keywords); I
> think serious consideration should be given to whether they should
> instead become col_name_keywords (which would, I believe, make it
> unnecessary to mess with precedence).
I agree that messing with the precedence rules is likely to have
unforeseen and undesirable side-effects. Generally, if you need
to create a precedence rule, that's because your grammar is
ambiguous. Precedence fixes that in a well-behaved way only for
cases that actually are very much like operator precedence rules.
Otherwise, you may just be papering over something that isn't
working very well. See e.g. commits 670a6c7a2 and 12b716457
for past cases where we learned that the hard way. (The latter
also points out that if you must have a precedence hack, it's
safer to hack individual rules than to stick precedences onto
terminal symbols.) In the case at hand, since the proposed patch
doesn't make FIRST and LAST be fully reserved, it seems just about
certain that it can be made to misbehave, including failing on
queries that were and should remain legal.
regards, tom lane