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
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? |