Re: WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS
Date: 2017-05-04 05:28:26
Message-ID: CANP8+jJqV+gwEJs0_X09S_G7VDZseAt-9WAjQq6=tsdu6WJk-A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3 May 2017 at 23:31, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

>> It also seems like we don't need to have *both* fully-reserved keywords
>> introducing each clause *and* parentheses around the lists. Maybe
>> dropping the parens around the stats-types list and the column-names
>> list would help to declutter? (But I'd keep parens around the WITH
>> options, for consistency with other statements.)

+1

>> One other point is that as long as we've got reserved keywords introducing
>> each clause, there isn't actually an implementation reason why we couldn't
>> accept the clauses in any order. Not sure I want to document it that way,
>> but it might not be a bad thing if the grammar was forgiving about whether
>> you write the USING or ON part first ...
>
> +1 for allowing arbitrary order of clauses.

+1

> I would document it with the
> USING clause at the end, and have that be what psql supports and pg_dump
> produces. Since there are no WITH options now we should leave that out
> until it's required.

Let's record the target syntax in parser comments so we can just slot
things in when needed later, without rediscussion.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2017-05-04 05:44:54 Re: [POC] hash partitioning
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2017-05-04 04:50:16 Re: PROVE_FLAGS