Re: relation_expr vs. qualified_name

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: relation_expr vs. qualified_name
Date: 2004-03-18 03:42:39
Message-ID: 4320.1079581359@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> How come half the ALTER TABLE statements use relation_expr and half use
> qualified_name?

relation_expr allows specification of "foo *" and "ONLY foo", and is
appropriate for ALTER commands that can recurse to child tables.
qualified_name is appropriate for the ones that are inherently
nonrecursive.

I'm entirely prepared to believe that some of them are misclassified in
the grammar ... you see any problems?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-18 03:46:12 Re: float8 regression test failure in head
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-03-18 03:32:40 float8 regression test failure in head