Re: WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS
Date: 2017-05-03 22:12:20
Message-ID: b20ada45-6e09-fd4b-7c42-818a9ee94295@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/3/17 11:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/2017 04:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>> One other point is that as long as we've got reserved keywords introducing
>>> each clause, there isn't actually an implementation reason why we couldn't
>>> accept the clauses in any order. Not sure I want to document it that way,
>>> but it might not be a bad thing if the grammar was forgiving about whether
>>> you write the USING or ON part first ...
>>
>> +1 for allowing arbitrary order of clauses. I would document it with the
>> USING clause at the end, and have that be what psql supports and pg_dump
>> produces. Since there are no WITH options now we should leave that out
>> until it's required.
>
> Ok, sounds good to me. Unless there are objections I'm going to have a
> shot at implementing this. Thanks for the discussion.
>

Works for me. Do you also plan to remove the parentheses for the USING
clause?

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2017-05-03 23:07:27 Re: How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-05-03 21:37:57 Re: How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?