[Fwd: 97BA-B931-B61D : CONSULT from pgsql-hackers-oo (post) (fwd)]

It seems like backward thinking to me. If you have to use UNDER with OF,
that means you're defining a type which includes the attributes of the
UNDER class as well as that of the OF class, and adding your own
attributes too. A brain dead form of multiple inheritance? I don't know
what they were thinking here.

Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> I'd say so, yes. The OF <user-defined type> doesn't appear to be
optional
> in
> that part of the rule.
>
> > Do people interpret this syntax to mean that you can only have an
UNDER
> > clause when using the OF <user-defined type> clause as well?
> >
> >
> > <table definition> ::=
> > CREATE [ <table scope> ] TABLE <table name>
> > <table contents source>
> > [ ON COMMIT <table commit action> ROWS ]
> >
> > <table contents source> ::=
> > <table element list>
> > | OF <user-defined type>
> > [ <subtable clause> ]
> > [ <table element list> ]
> > <subtable clause> ::=
> > UNDER <supertable clause>