Re: CREATE TABLE .. LIKE .. EXCLUDING documentation

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE .. LIKE .. EXCLUDING documentation
Date: 2018-06-29 06:39:01
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 29 Jun 2018, at 07:56, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:22:15 -0700
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>> ​Maybe try something like:
>> It is legal to specify the same option multiple times - e.g., "INCLUDING
>> option EXCLUDING option" - the outcome is whichever comes last in the
>> command (i.e., in the example, option is excluded).
> Certainly. However, it seems to me that example is also redundant.
> I rewrote this as follows:
> It is legal to specify multiple options for the same kind of object.
> If they conflict, latter options always override former options.
> Does this make sense?

I think this wording makes sense and is clear. Only found a small typo:

+ This is tipically used after <literal>INCLUDING ALL</literal>.


cheers ./daniel

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kuntal Ghosh 2018-06-29 06:39:49 Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion
Previous Message Rajkumar Raghuwanshi 2018-06-29 06:24:48 Re: Server crashed with "TRAP: unrecognized TOAST vartag("1", File: "heaptuple.c", Line: 1490)"