| From: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: create table like including storage parameter |
| Date: | 2025-10-01 06:42:29 |
| Message-ID: | CACJufxGfAN0Gh8sQKYC105G15XLNtxd=7uUXbVZs5sPa=WxUNA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:28 AM David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 28, 2025, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Since we already support INCLUDING STORAGE, I’m not sure that
>> INCLUDING STORAGE PARAMETER is the right syntax to go with.
>
> I’d just call it “including parameters”; sure, all of the existing ones are storage related, but if there were non-storage ones we’d include those as well, so qualifying with a parameter type doesn’t seem correct.
>
“including parameters” would add another keyword "PARAMETERS''.
currently "INCLUDING STORAGE PARAMETER" no need to add a new keyword.
If other people favor “including parameters”, then we can do it that
way in the future.
attached is just a simple rebase of v1.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-create-table-like-incluing-storage-parameter.patch | application/x-patch | 13.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-10-01 06:49:25 | Re: pgstattuple "unexpected zero page" for gist and hash indexes |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-10-01 06:39:35 | Re: Remove custom redundant full page write description from GIN |