postgresql/src/include/parser/parse_expr.h

27 lines
751 B
C
Raw Normal View History

/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* parse_expr.h
* handle expressions in parser
*
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2019, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
2010-09-20 16:08:53 -04:00
* src/include/parser/parse_expr.h
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#ifndef PARSE_EXPR_H
#define PARSE_EXPR_H
#include "parser/parse_node.h"
/* GUC parameters */
Make operator precedence follow the SQL standard more closely. While the SQL standard is pretty vague on the overall topic of operator precedence (because it never presents a unified BNF for all expressions), it does seem reasonable to conclude from the spec for <boolean value expression> that OR has the lowest precedence, then AND, then NOT, then IS tests, then the six standard comparison operators, then everything else (since any non-boolean operator in a WHERE clause would need to be an argument of one of these). We were only sort of on board with that: most notably, while "<" ">" and "=" had properly low precedence, "<=" ">=" and "<>" were treated as generic operators and so had significantly higher precedence. And "IS" tests were even higher precedence than those, which is very clearly wrong per spec. Another problem was that "foo NOT SOMETHING bar" constructs, such as "x NOT LIKE y", were treated inconsistently because of a bison implementation artifact: they had the documented precedence with respect to operators to their right, but behaved like NOT (i.e., very low priority) with respect to operators to their left. Fixing the precedence issues is just a small matter of rearranging the precedence declarations in gram.y, except for the NOT problem, which requires adding an additional lookahead case in base_yylex() so that we can attach a different token precedence to NOT LIKE and allied two-word operators. The bulk of this patch is not the bug fix per se, but adding logic to parse_expr.c to allow giving warnings if an expression has changed meaning because of these precedence changes. These warnings are off by default and are enabled by the new GUC operator_precedence_warning. It's believed that very few applications will be affected by these changes, but it was agreed that a warning mechanism is essential to help debug any that are.
2015-03-11 13:22:52 -04:00
extern bool operator_precedence_warning;
extern bool Transform_null_equals;
extern Node *transformExpr(ParseState *pstate, Node *expr, ParseExprKind exprKind);
extern const char *ParseExprKindName(ParseExprKind exprKind);
Phase 2 of pgindent updates. Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments following #endif to not obey the general rule. Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after. Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else. That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
2017-06-21 15:18:54 -04:00
#endif /* PARSE_EXPR_H */