Re: [HACKERS] Psql doesn't allow multiple action rules

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org (PostgreSQL HACKERS)
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Psql doesn't allow multiple action rules
Date: 1998-08-16 15:30:56
Message-ID: 5366.903281456@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> The question is now, should we tell psql that []'s have to be
> treated like ()'s or should we change the syntax of CREATE
> RULE in the backends parser from [] to ()?

Is the syntax of CREATE RULE defined by the SQL standard (or modeled
on something else that is in the standard), or are we just making it
up out of whole cloth?

If it's defined by the standard then I think we have no choice but to
change psql.

If it's our own invention, I think switching to () might be a better
idea. I'm not that worried about changing psql, but I do wonder how
many other applications might "know" a similar amount about SQL
syntax...

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Keith Parks 1998-08-16 16:53:29 Re: [HACKERS] int8 type -- call for porting results!
Previous Message Tom Lane 1998-08-16 15:03:36 Re: [HACKERS] int8 type -- call for porting results!