From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ONLY with parentheses |
Date: | 2009-01-08 14:44:14 |
Message-ID: | 15392.1231425854@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Then I noticed that the SQL standard requires parentheses, like
>>
>> TRUNCATE ONLY (a), b
>>
>> which is clearer.
> Hmm, if I want to truncate only both (or is that "both only"?), what do
> I have to do?
> TRUNCATE ONLY (a, b)
Yeah. To me those parentheses look more like redundant parentheses,
eg writing 2 + (2) instead of just 2 + 2. If you consider that they're
not redundant then it becomes a fair question why Alvaro's multiple-
elements syntax doesn't work.
In the end what you have to point out is that ONLY binds tighter than
comma. I don't think that parens where the committee put them help
resolve that at all.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-08 14:45:25 | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-08 14:34:42 | Re: text search patch status update? |