| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert B(dot) Easter" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: UNDER? |
| Date: | 2001-01-11 17:10:11 |
| Message-ID: | 3A5DE8F3.B3F5DA6E@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Robert B. Easter" wrote:
>
> Is UNDER being stripped out for 7.1? I'm looking at documentation and don't
> want to write about it if it won't be in there.
Thats' how I understand the outcome of a discussion about 1 week ago
here:
Tom Lane wrote on Tue Jan 2 20:19:18 2001:
> 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.
------------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corrado Giacomini | 2001-01-11 17:18:45 | conflicting types for `struct Oid' |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-01-11 16:52:03 | Re: AW: Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX |