* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Are we sure the documentation's not wrong? A quick test says this
> syntax isn't accepted in *any* existing release, and I can't say I
> understand what it should do anyway.
Was just composing an email to that effect, actually. I agree that it's
a documentation issue. Of course, that makes it easier to fix. :)
Thanks,
Stephen