SELECT of pseudo hex value gives unexpected result

"Gunnar \"Nick\" Bluth" <gunnar.bluth@pro-open.de> writes:

Tried
SELECT 0x5e73266725;

and received:
-[ RECORD 1 ]--
x5e73266725 | 0

That was not what I expected... is this expected/documented behaviour?

Well, there are no hex literals in (PG's notion of) SQL, so that isn't
a valid token. But it's the concatenation of two valid tokens. So
what you wrote is the same as

SELECT 0 x5e73266725;

which is an abbreviation for

SELECT 0 AS x5e73266725;

and that's the result you got.

I think that the SQL standard considers adjacent tokens to be invalid
unless one of them is punctuation (e.g. 1+2), but our lexer is a bit
less rigid about that.

regards, tom lane

Gunnar "Nick" Bluth wrote:

Tried
SELECT 0x5e73266725;

and received:
-[ RECORD 1 ]--
x5e73266725 | 0

That was not what I expected... is this expected/documented behaviour?

Looks like you don't need a space between a number literal and
the column alias.

I don't see any problem with that.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com

Am 29.01.2019 um 17:39 schrieb Tom Lane:

"Gunnar \"Nick\" Bluth" <gunnar.bluth@pro-open.de> writes:

Tried
SELECT 0x5e73266725;

[...]

SELECT 0 AS x5e73266725;

and that's the result you got.

Well, yeah, _that_ was pretty obvious. I just didn't expect ot to happen...

I think that the SQL standard considers adjacent tokens to be invalid
unless one of them is punctuation (e.g. 1+2), but our lexer is a bit
less rigid about that.

it kind of comforts me that it's at least not defined like that in the
standard ;-)

Cheers anyway!
--
Gunnar "Nick" Bluth
RHCE/SCLA

Mobil +49 172 8853339
Email: gunnar.bluth@pro-open.de
__________________________________________________________________________
In 1984 mainstream users were choosing VMS over UNIX. Ten years later
they are choosing Windows over UNIX. What part of that message aren't you
getting? - Tom Payne