Re: TABLE command

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TABLE command
Date: 2008-11-07 21:45:27
Message-ID: 24337.1226094327@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> + | TABLE table_ref

BTW, this seems to accept *way* more than is intended by the spec.
I think a closer approximation would be "TABLE relation_expr".
You could even make a case for "TABLE qualified_name", which is
what the letter of the spec seems to demand; but it's probably
reasonable to allow ONLY decoration.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2008-11-07 21:51:48 Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-11-07 21:44:51 Re: Updated backslash consistency patch