Re: EXTRACT Clarification

From: Thomas F(dot)O'Connell <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: EXTRACT Clarification
Date: 2004-09-29 22:46:39
Message-ID: 6CFBBB90-1269-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-general

Ah, so it's really a question of whether the syntactic sugar of CREATE
INDEX is considered worthwhile by the developers (rather than a
standards compliance issue) because CREATE INDEX is not a part of the
SQL spec?

Now that I understand what's going on, I don't have a strong
preference, but I'd say that either it needs noting in the
documentation or it should be added to the grammar.

And if it isn't going to hit the grammar for 7.4.x, I'd be happy to
supply a doc patch.

-tfo

On Sep 29, 2004, at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> writes:
>> That seems reasonable, too, although I was interested to learn that
>> this (and a few other expressions) weren't actually functions.
>
> They are functions ... but not from the point of view of the grammar,
> which has special productions for them to cope with SQL's whimsical
> syntax requirements.
>
> regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-09-29 22:49:51 Re: EXTRACT Clarification
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-09-29 16:09:02 Re: EXTRACT Clarification

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-09-29 22:49:51 Re: EXTRACT Clarification
Previous Message Ed L. 2004-09-29 22:32:31 7.3.4 vacuum/analyze error