| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
| Date: | 2002-01-09 01:52:27 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0201091249550.11788-100000@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > > > Does this have the multiple "WITH xxx" clauses which were discussed
> > > > earlier? That is a nonstarter for syntax. There are other places in the
> > > > grammar having "with clauses" and multiple arguments or subclauses, and
> > > > having the shift/reduce issues resolved...
> ...
> > CREATE DATABASE <name> WITH LOCATION = <name> WITH OWNER = <name>
>
> It was this syntax I was wondering about. Multiple "WITH"s should not be
> necessary. Are they actually required in the patch?
Argh. My bad. The syntax is what you had in mind:
CREATE DATABASE <name> [WITH [LOCATION <name>] [OWNER <name>] ...]
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | computertechnology | 2002-01-09 04:00:00 | Commercial: New Book!! PostgreSQL book is released into the market |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2002-01-09 01:35:36 | 7.1 vs. 7.2 on AIX 5L |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-01-09 11:58:36 | --with-tcl build on AIX (and others) fails |
| Previous Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2002-01-08 20:25:46 | Re: URL's fixed |