Why? We could accept anything in the list? i.e.:
(ident =? value[, ident =? value]*)
> I don't against this but as far as I've heard there is some
> opposition among PG community against new keywords. Maybe I am wrong.
the ident is a keyword that can be interpreted later on, not a "reserved
keyword" from a parser perspective, which is the only real issue?
The parser does not need to know about it, only the command interpreter
which will have to interpret it. AUTOMATIC is a nice parser cue to
introduce such a ident-value list.
> 2. The existing syntax for declarative partitioning is different to your
> proposal.
Yep. I think that it was not so good a design choice from a
language/extensibility perspective.
Thank you very much, Fabien. It is clear enough.
BTW could you tell me a couple of words about pros and cons of c-code syntax parsing comparing to parsing using gram.y trees? I think both are possible but my predisposition was that we'd better use the later if possible.
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov