| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reverse-sort indexes and NULLS FIRST/LAST sorting |
| Date: | 2007-01-05 19:53:42 |
| Message-ID: | DBE187F8-A7BD-4058-AE61-07D9C611FDF1@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 4, 2007, at 13:33 , Tom Lane wrote:
> Another possible objection is that in the proposed CREATE INDEX syntax
>
> index-column-id [ opclass-name ] [ DESC ] [ NULLS {FIRST|LAST} ]
>
> DESC must be a fully reserved word else it can't be distinguished from
> an opclass name. But guess what, it already is.
A point in favor of using DESC over REVERSE as you had earlier
proposed is that DESC is already a reserved word, while REVERSE isnt'
even in the list of key words. As DESC is quite closely associated
with its antonym ASC wrt ordering, any thoughts of allowing ASC as an
optional noise word? Users may be surprised if ASC were to throw an
error.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2007-01-05 19:57:37 | Re: A patch to pg_regress for Windows port |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-01-05 19:32:32 | Re: A patch to pg_regress for Windows port |