Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification
Date: 2001-11-14 16:43:37
Message-ID: 6923.1005756217@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

BTW, is there any good reason that AS is not a member of the ColLabel
set? It wouldn't cause a parse conflict to add it (I just tested that)
and it seems like that's a special case we could do without.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-11-14 16:59:58 Re: 7.2b2 problem using like 'XXX%' sequential scan
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-11-14 16:42:47 Re: Open items

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD 2001-11-14 18:00:19 Re: [HACKERS] Open Items (was: RE: [HACKERS] Beta going well)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-11-14 16:33:03 Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification