| From: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Robert B(dot) Easter" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL3 UNDER |
| Date: | 2000-05-24 00:00:46 |
| Message-ID: | 392B1BAE.5CBC9762@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
> > As far as I'm concerned, current postgres INHERIT, is exactly the same
> > semantics as UNDER (apart from multiple inheritance).
>
> Agreed, but note that according to the final SQL99 standard the UNDER
> clause comes before the originally defined column list, which does make
> sense because that's how the columns end up.
Are you sure? It actually looks to me like you can have the UNDER before
or after. What sense do you make of that? (Note the <table element
list> occuring before and after the <subtable clause>.
<table definition> ::=
CREATE [ <table scope> ] TABLE <table name>
<table contents source>
[ ON COMMIT <table commit action> ROWS ]
<table contents source> ::=
<table element list>
| OF <user-defined type>
[ <subtable clause> ]
[ <table element list> ]
<subtable clause> ::=
UNDER <supertable clause>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ned Lilly | 2000-05-24 00:02:20 | Re: MySQL now supports transactions ... |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-05-23 23:55:10 | Re: [GENERAL] Re: Postgresql OO Patch |