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: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item
Date: 2002-01-08 15:15:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> > > 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...

It was this syntax I was wondering about. Multiple "WITH"s should not be
necessary. Are they actually required in the patch?

                  - Thomas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-08 15:29:27
Subject: Finally ready to go for RC1?
Previous:From: Holger KrugDate: 2002-01-08 15:13:22
Subject: Re: Time as keyword

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-01-08 19:30:59
Subject: Re: URL's fixed
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-08 15:08:38
Subject: Re: URL's fixed

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