Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Not sure. I know I only changed % to have precedence like /. No one is
> complaining, and I think the problems are restricted to +,-,*,/, and %.
> Should I fix any of these other ones?
Right now I think % is the only problem, since it's the only operator
that has all three syntaxes (infix, prefix, postfix):
regression=> select distinct p1.oprname, p1.oprkind, p2.oprkind from
regression-> pg_operator as p1, pg_operator as p2
regression-> where p1.oprname = p2.oprname and p1.oprkind < p2.oprkind;
oprname|oprkind|oprkind
-------+-------+-------
# |b |l
% |b |l
% |b |r
% |l |r
- |b |l
?- |b |l
?| |b |l
@ |b |l
(8 rows)
Having both infix and prefix syntaxes doesn't seem to confuse the
parser --- at least, we have regress tests of both prefix @ and
infix @ (likewise #) and they're not complaining. Probably you need
a postfix syntax plus one or both of the other syntaxes to yield an
ambiguity that will confuse the parser. I haven't tried to track it
down in the grammar, however.
My concern with hacking in a special case for '%' in the grammar
is that we'll need to do it again anytime someone adds an operator
with the right set of syntaxes. It'd be better to understand *why*
the parser is having a hard time with this all of a sudden, and fix it
without reference to any particular operator. Postgres is supposed to
be extensible after all...
regards, tom lane