| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: EXTRACT Clarification |
| Date: | 2004-09-29 22:49:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4195.1096498191@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-general |
"Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> writes:
> Ah, so it's really a question of whether the syntactic sugar of CREATE
> INDEX is considered worthwhile by the developers (rather than a
> standards compliance issue) because CREATE INDEX is not a part of the
> SQL spec?
Right. It is not a SQL-compliance item because CREATE INDEX isn't in
the standard in the first place.
The fact that the CREATE INDEX syntax allows for some things that look
like function calls but not for other things that look like function
calls is an annoyance, no doubt about it. I'm not sure how important
it is to fix though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-29 23:46:04 | Re: EXTRACT Clarification |
| Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-09-29 22:46:39 | Re: EXTRACT Clarification |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-29 22:59:24 | Re: Index Analysis: Filters |
| Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-09-29 22:46:39 | Re: EXTRACT Clarification |