Re: WIP Patch for GROUPING SETS phase 1

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> I'm not convinced of that; I think some creative hackery in theTom> grammar might be able to deal with this.

Making GROUP BY CUBE(a,b) parse as grouping sets rather than as a
function turned out to be the easy part: give CUBE a lower precedence
than '(' (equal to the one for IDENT and various other unreserved
keywords), and a rule that has an explicit CUBE '(' gets preferred
over one that reduces the CUBE to an unreserved_keyword.

The (relatively minor) ugliness required is mostly in the ruleutils
logic to decide how to output a cube(...) function call in such a way
that it doesn't get misparsed as a grouping set. See my other mail on
that.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)