From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
Cc: | Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
Date: | 2002-01-08 04:26:07 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0201081517040.9642-100000@linuxworld.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > > > * Make it easier to create a database owned by someone who can't createdb,
> > > > perhaps CREATE DATABASE dbname WITH USER = "user"
> > > CREATE DATABASE dbname WITH OWNER = "user"
> > A much better idea. There is no conflict in using OWNER here.
>
> Does this have the multiple "WITH xxx" clauses which were discussed
> earlier? That is a nonstarter for syntax. There are other places in the
When was it discussed so that I can have a read? I cannot recall it.
And yes, it is not pleasant to implement. Luckily, the design of the
CREATE DATABASE rule had already incorporated the possibility of
...
WITH LOCATION = ...
WITH TEMPLAETE = ...
etc.
I'm not sure, however, if this is really what you were asking.
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-01-08 04:42:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-01-08 04:03:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-01-08 04:42:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-01-08 04:03:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |