On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> No, I intentionally didn't back-patch that.  The only benefit of the
>>> change is throwing a useful error message for questionable syntax.
>
>> then, maybe a fix in the docs of back branches?
>
> What's to fix?  The documentation already makes it quite clear where
> you're supposed to put the label.  I think documenting the code's
> actual behavior could only confuse people.
>

ah! yeah! sorry for the noise... it was just the need to say something
else... ;)

-- 
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

In response to

• Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of at 2010-03-03 06:12:16 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Albe Laurenz	Date: 2010-03-03 08:11:00
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] to_timestamp() and quarters
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-03-03 06:12:16
	Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: User Itagaki	Date: 2010-03-03 08:10:12
	Subject: pgbulkload - pgbulkload: New Directory
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-03-03 06:12:16
	Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of