[Fwd: 97BA-B931-B61D : CONSULT from pgsql-hackers-oo (post) (fwd)]
It seems like backward thinking to me. If you have to use UNDER with OF,
that means you're defining a type which includes the attributes of the
UNDER class as well as that of the OF class, and adding your own
attributes too. A brain dead form of multiple inheritance? I don't know
what they were thinking here.
Stephan Szabo wrote:
I'd say so, yes. The OF <user-defined type> doesn't appear to be
optional
in
that part of the rule.Do people interpret this syntax to mean that you can only have an
UNDER
Show quoted text
clause when using the OF <user-defined type> clause as well?
<table definition> ::=
CREATE [ <table scope> ] TABLE <table name>
<table contents source>
[ ON COMMIT <table commit action> ROWS ]<table contents source> ::=
<table element list>
| OF <user-defined type>
[ <subtable clause> ]
[ <table element list> ]
<subtable clause> ::=
UNDER <supertable clause>