| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: per-column generic option |
| Date: | 2011-07-12 13:56:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1310478960-sup-8358@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Shigeru Hanada's message of mar jul 12 03:11:54 -0400 2011:
> (2011/07/12 0:44), Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On lör, 2011-07-09 at 23:49 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> The new ALTER TABLE grammar seems a bit strange -- ADD, SET, DROP. Is
> >> this defined by the SQL/MED standard? It seems at odds with our
> >> handling of attoptions
> >
> > Well, I believe the SQL/MED options were actually implemented first and
> > the attoptions afterwards. But it's probably not unwise to keep them
> > separate, even though the syntaxes could have been made more similar.
>
> As you say, syntax for attoptions/reloptions seem to satisfy the
> requirement of SQL/MED; SET for ADD/SET and RESET for DROP.
Speaking of which -- what's the difference between ADD and SET for SQL/MED
options?
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-07-12 14:13:42 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-07-12 13:54:34 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Enable CHECK constraints to be declared NOT VALID |