| From: | wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
|---|---|
| To: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com |
| Cc: | emkxp01(at)mtcc(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu |
| Subject: | Re: Rules puzzle with "current" keyword. |
| Date: | 1999-06-02 11:49:11 |
| Message-ID: | m10p9WB-0003kGC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > It could be that just the parser and rule decoder are out of step?
> >
> > I'm not sure which is correct now "old" or "current", anyone care to comment?
>
> Anyway - OLD is the correct keyword in your case. I'll take
> a look at it - thanks.
Fixed
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-06-02 13:16:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |
| Previous Message | Massimo Dal Zotto | 1999-06-02 10:23:47 | Re: [HACKERS] nonblocking lock? |