Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility?

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility?
Date: 2002-06-29 04:14:56
Message-ID: 008a01c21f23$87553560$0200a8c0@SOL
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sure? I don't see it. In fact, I only see it in the 'SQL92 features we
don't have section'.

http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/sql-createview.html

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] mistake in sql99 compatibility?

> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > The cvs docs say that we support the 'WITH CHECK OPTION' on views, but
the
> > TODO says we don't...
>
> TODO updated. Not sure when it was added but I see it in SGML docs.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2002-06-29 17:49:56 Re: Are these groups "unauthorized"?
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-06-29 01:14:17 Re: Object Oriented Features