| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
| Cc: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Psql doesn't allow multiple action rules |
| Date: | 1998-08-16 17:21:56 |
| Message-ID: | 199808161721.NAA29841@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > The question is now, should we tell psql that []'s have to be
> > treated like ()'s or should we change the syntax of CREATE
> > RULE in the backends parser from [] to ()?
>
> Is the syntax of CREATE RULE defined by the SQL standard (or modeled
> on something else that is in the standard), or are we just making it
> up out of whole cloth?
>
> If it's defined by the standard then I think we have no choice but to
> change psql.
>
> If it's our own invention, I think switching to () might be a better
> idea. I'm not that worried about changing psql, but I do wonder how
> many other applications might "know" a similar amount about SQL
> syntax...
Yes, if standard requires[], then let's use it. If not, use ().
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-08-16 17:38:42 | Re: [HACKERS] What I'm working on |
| Previous Message | Keith Parks | 1998-08-16 16:53:29 | Re: [HACKERS] int8 type -- call for porting results! |