| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters |
| Date: | 2018-12-06 16:58:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYU91G_8Sf59wUo-vSCFhbeBXuVQ7FTch6MuQ3fRe8WUg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:55 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> How about saying that you must give an opclass name if you want to
> specify options, ie the syntax is
>
> [ opclass_name [ ( options... ) ] ]
>
> I'm not necessarily wedded to that, but it seems worth throwing
> out the idea.
Agreed, that's not bad, certainly better than making OPTIONS more reserved.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2018-12-06 17:01:52 | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-12-06 16:57:00 | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |