On 27 December 2011 20:16, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> It's not only the error message that's misleading, but the whole code,
> because the entire code for CREATE TABLE ... (LIKE ...) claims to do
> "inheritance" based on an ancient understanding of the SQL standard. I
> know this has confused me many times already, so I decided to clean this
> up and rename all the internal parser structures, split up the
> regression tests for real inheritance and CREATE TABLE LIKE, and adjust
> the error messages. Patch attached.
Thanks for the patch. +1 for changing "parent" to "source" in the
docs. The patch doesn't apply cleanly for me for some reason though.
> Anyway, one question that's perhaps worth discussing
> is whether we should allow and disallow the various INCLUDING options
> depending on the relation type. For example, views don't have indexes,
> so should we disallow INCLUDING INDEXES or just assume they don't have
I'd personally prefer the latter, primarily because it won't create
another syntax variation with no discernable benefit.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2011-12-28 02:54:02|
|Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2|
|Previous:||From: Steve Crawford||Date: 2011-12-28 01:51:06|
|Subject: pgstat wait timeout|