pgsql: TABLE command
Log Message:
-----------
TABLE command
Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref:
create_table_as.sgml (r1.39 -> r1.40)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_table_as.sgml?r1=1.39&r2=1.40)
select.sgml (r1.109 -> r1.110)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml?r1=1.109&r2=1.110)
pgsql/src/backend/catalog:
sql_features.txt (r1.32 -> r1.33)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/catalog/sql_features.txt?r1=1.32&r2=1.33)
pgsql/src/backend/parser:
gram.y (r2.637 -> r2.638)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/parser/gram.y?r1=2.637&r2=2.638)
pgsql/src/bin/psql:
tab-complete.c (r1.176 -> r1.177)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c?r1=1.176&r2=1.177)
pgsql/src/test/regress/expected:
select.out (r1.18 -> r1.19)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/select.out?r1=1.18&r2=1.19)
pgsql/src/test/regress/sql:
select.sql (r1.14 -> r1.15)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/sql/select.sql?r1=1.14&r2=1.15)
petere@postgresql.org (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
Log Message:
-----------
TABLE command
If this got re-posted for review I missed it :-(. I disagree with using
qualified_name here --- I think it would be better to use relation_expr
so that people would have the ability to specify inheritance behavior.
If you want to point to the spec and say that that syntax isn't in the
spec, that's true, but then you need to justify the inhOpt setting
you're forcing people to use. It's not entirely clear what behavior the
spec intends, but I'm pretty sure INH_DEFAULT isn't it.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
petere@postgresql.org (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
Log Message:
-----------
TABLE commandIf this got re-posted for review I missed it :-(. I disagree with using
qualified_name here --- I think it would be better to use relation_expr
so that people would have the ability to specify inheritance behavior.
If you want to point to the spec and say that that syntax isn't in the
spec, that's true, but then you need to justify the inhOpt setting
you're forcing people to use. It's not entirely clear what behavior the
spec intends, but I'm pretty sure INH_DEFAULT isn't it.
relation_expr is fine by me. It just makes the syntax more complicated
to explain ...
Btw., so we plan to keep the sql_inheritance parameter forever?
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
relation_expr is fine by me. It just makes the syntax more complicated
to explain ...
Btw., so we plan to keep the sql_inheritance parameter forever?
I have no idea ... but I should think we'd want to allow ONLY here in
any case. You can use that anywhere else in the SELECT syntax that you
can write a table name, so why not here?
regards, tom lane