| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump --binary-upgrade vs. ALTER TYPE ... DROP ATTRIBUTE |
| Date: | 2011-04-21 05:31:12 |
| Message-ID: | F8723BEB-5569-451C-861A-1A4D1998D6BE@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 20, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> But one might well wonder why we didn't decide on:
>> CREATE TABLE n OF TYPE t;
>> ...rather than the actual syntax:
>> CREATE TABLE n OF t;
>> ...which has brevity to recommend it, but likewise isn't terribly clear.
>
>> I presume someone will now refer to a standard of some kind....
>
> SQL:2008 11.3 <table definition>, the bits around <typed table clause>
> to be specific.
Right on schedule...
> The SQL committee's taste in syntax is, uh, not mine. They are
> amazingly long-winded in places and then they go and do something
> like this ...
Not to mention that it won't do to use existing syntax (like function call notation) when you could invent bespoke syntax, ideally involving new keywords.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-04-21 06:43:31 | Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-04-21 04:00:45 | Re: Extension Packaging |