Re: TABLE command

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TABLE command
Date: 2008-11-08 19:10:09
Message-ID: 19886.1226171409@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Incidentally, I noticed while looking at this that "\h with" also
> fails, even though WITH can now be the first word of a valid SQL
> statement. I think we ought to patch psql to return the same help for
> WITH as it does for SELECT.

Hmm. Given the current infrastructure for \h, the only way to do that
would be to make a separate ref page for WITH, which feels like the
wrong thing. And the objection I have to TABLE is not the code but the
apparent need to give it its own ref page (as we already did for VALUES,
and I found that pretty ugly too).

Is there a way to make all of these point at the SELECT ref page?
Something cleaner than a special hack in psql would be nice, but
I guess I'd settle for that as still an improvement over considering
that TABLE is a command. The problem with documenting VALUES and
TABLE as commands is that this doesn't reflect their principal use
as elements of a SELECT; and it also becomes quite unclear why you can't
use, say, EXPLAIN or SHOW as elements of a SELECT.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-11-08 19:25:53 Re: Patch for SQL-Standard Interval output and decoupling DateStyle from IntervalStyle
Previous Message Robert Haas 2008-11-08 18:50:51 Re: TABLE command