Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility?
Date: 2002-06-28 19:21:33
Message-ID: 6149.1025292093@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> The cvs docs say that we support the 'WITH CHECK OPTION' on views, but the
>> TODO says we don't...

> TODO updated. Not sure when it was added but I see it in SGML docs.

A moment's examination of gram.y would have convinced you that the
docs are wrong ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-06-28 19:29:37 Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-06-28 18:57:27 Re: mistake in sql99 compatibility?