Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item
Date: 2002-01-08 03:47:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> > > * Make it easier to create a database owned by someone who can't createdb,
> > >   perhaps CREATE DATABASE dbname WITH USER = "user"
> > CREATE DATABASE dbname WITH OWNER = "user"
> A much better idea. There is no conflict in using OWNER here.

Does this have the multiple "WITH xxx" clauses which were discussed
earlier? That is a nonstarter for syntax. There are other places in the
grammar having "with clauses" and multiple arguments or subclauses, and
having the shift/reduce issues resolved...

                   - Thomas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-08 03:48:04
Subject: Re: ecpg compile error on AIX
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2002-01-08 02:20:30
Subject: Re: Problem with view and fetch_fields

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2002-01-08 03:58:11
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-07 18:56:45
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgcryto strangeness...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group