| From: | Fabien COELHO <fabien(dot)coelho(at)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "ALSO" keyword to "CREATE RULE" patch |
| Date: | 2004-03-04 15:07:54 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0403041602130.28778@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-patches |
> I thought the syntax came from Berkeley. We can add ALSO if folks like
> it. I can't think of cases where we have keywords for both on and off
> behavior, and allow a default if the keyword is missing.
ALTER TABLE ... DROP CONSTRAINT ... [ RESTRICT | CASCADE ]
CREATE TABLE ... [ WITH OIDS | WITHOUT OIDS ]
CREATE USER [ CREATEDB | NOCREATEDB ] ...
IMHO, from the language design point of view, it seems better if all
options have a name.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-03-04 15:13:19 | Re: "ALSO" keyword to "CREATE RULE" patch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-04 14:52:56 | Re: "ALSO" keyword to "CREATE RULE" patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-03-04 15:13:19 | Re: "ALSO" keyword to "CREATE RULE" patch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-04 14:52:56 | Re: "ALSO" keyword to "CREATE RULE" patch |