sql: incomplete desugaring of type keywords into type names

[knz]

Noticed while reviewing cockroachdb/docs#2887.

The following PR #18530 introduced support for the special, internal-only type in PostgreSQL called "char".

This is incomplete, see the comment below for details.

[jordanlewis]

I don't really see the problem here - we alias "char" to char because, unlike PG, we don't have an actual behavioral or internal difference between char and "char".

We also now support naming types in quotes, but only the ones that aren't recognized by the SQL standard. This is the same as PG as well. For example:

[email protected]:56746/demo> create table a (a "int8" primary key);
CREATE TABLE

Time: 6.208098ms

jordan=# create table zxzzz (a "int" primary key);
ERROR:  type "int" does not exist
LINE 1: create table zxzzz (a "int" primary key);
                              ^
jordan=# create table zxzzz (a "int8" primary key);
CREATE TABLE
jordan=#

[knz]

My point is that the test if $1 == "char" is ineffective.
If you want to make a specially named type called "char", the SQL input syntax for this is """char""" and it will show up after scanning as $1 == "\"char\"".

[jordanlewis]

No, the input syntax is the INPUT literal "char". Not the string literal "char".

jordan=# create table daaz (a """char""" primary key);
ERROR:  type ""char"" does not exist
LINE 1: create table daaz (a """char""" primary key);

[knz]

Welp, that is then again a sign that the pg docs are wrong. Thanks for pointing it out.

The situation I am working with is that our docs do not (yet) reflect this properly and the explanation is subtle. I'll need to investigate more before I can have a chat with Lauren and explain what's going on.

[knz]

All right I dug into the pg source code and it so happens that both of us were right, although neither of us had the right explanation for it :)

Where I was right:

• pg applies the same lexical rules and name resolution rules for types as it does for other things. That is, in general (but not for int and char and a few other specific things, see below) lexically the types x and "x" are the same if x is lowercase.
• pg will recognize any type reachable via search_path with its short name, and no other type beyond that (but see below)
• this implies (what I suspected from the start), with the standard search path and no user-defined types, pg_catalog.x is the same as x for any predefined types (because they are defined in pg_catalog), that's why pg_catalog.int8 is the same as int8.
• there is a type pg_catalog.char and that's why it seems legitimate to expect that char and "char" are equivalent input syntax. Yet it doesn't work. Explanation below.

Where you were right:

• you can't use create table a( a "int") nor create a (a "char") even though create a (a "int8") is valid. See below.

Where we were both missing something:

• there is no type called int in pg_catalog or anywhere else (!!)
• there is a grammar rule which desugars the keyword CHAR to the identifier varchar during parsing, even though char is a valid type in pg_catalog.
• there is a grammar rule which desugars the keyword INT to the identifier int4 during parsing
• ditto for the following types

Keyword	Desugars to
INT	int4
INTEGER	int4
SMALLINT	int2
BIGINT	int8
REAL	float4
DOUBLE PRECISION	float8
DECIMAL	numeric
DEC	numeric
BOOLEAN	bool
BIT	bit or varbit depending on whether a precision is specified
[NATIONAL] CHAR	varchar or bpchar, depending on whether VARYING is specified
NATIONAL CHARACTER	ditto
NCHAR	ditto

So the input syntax "char" identifies the type pg_catalog.char because it bypasses the desugaring rule on the CHAR keyword.

[knz]

This has been completed (except for NCHAR which is just plainly not supported). Nothing actionable any more here.