| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
| Date: | 2002-01-08 15:15:22 |
| Message-ID: | 3C3B0D0A.50FE1C43@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> > > Does this have the multiple "WITH xxx" clauses which were discussed
> > > earlier? That is a nonstarter for syntax. There are other places in the
> > > grammar having "with clauses" and multiple arguments or subclauses, and
> > > having the shift/reduce issues resolved...
...
> CREATE DATABASE <name> WITH LOCATION = <name> WITH OWNER = <name>
It was this syntax I was wondering about. Multiple "WITH"s should not be
necessary. Are they actually required in the patch?
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-08 15:29:27 | Finally ready to go for RC1? |
| Previous Message | Holger Krug | 2002-01-08 15:13:22 | Re: Time as keyword |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-01-08 19:30:59 | Re: URL's fixed |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-08 15:08:38 | Re: URL's fixed |