From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Robert B(dot) Easter" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Paul Govereau <pgoverea(at)akamai(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Inheritance docs error. |
Date: | 2001-01-03 09:30:51 |
Message-ID: | 3A52F14B.10FE6D8C@tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> One thing that bothered me is that my reading of the SQL99 draft
> disallows the UNDER syntax you are using. I read:
>
> <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>
>
> <supertable clause> ::= <supertable name>
>
> It looks to me like "UNDER <table name>" cannot appear without a
> preceding "OF <user-defined type>". I am not clear on the semantic
> implications of the OF clause.
to me it seems that only this is OR-d : <table element list> | OF
<user-defined type>
and the rest ([ <subtable clause> ],[ <table element list> ])is just
optional
> Anyway, we seem to have a clear consensus to pull the UNDER clause from
> the grammar and stick with INHERITS for 7.1. I will take care of that
> in the next day or so.
Good.
-----------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | drevil | 2001-01-03 09:59:33 | Re: MySQL and PostgreSQL speed compare |
Previous Message | anson | 2001-01-03 08:04:36 | Sequence |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Frank Joerdens | 2001-01-03 13:44:32 | Re: [INTERFACES] Re: PHP and PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-03 07:14:15 | Please review TODO list |