Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item

From: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item
Date: 2002-01-09 01:52:27
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > > > Does this have the multiple "WITH xxx" clauses which were discussed
> > > > earlier? That is a nonstarter for syntax. There are other places in the
> > > > grammar having "with clauses" and multiple arguments or subclauses, and
> > > > having the shift/reduce issues resolved...
> ...
> It was this syntax I was wondering about. Multiple "WITH"s should not be
> necessary. Are they actually required in the patch?

Argh. My bad. The syntax is what you had in mind:

CREATE DATABASE <name> [WITH [LOCATION <name>] [OWNER <name>] ...]


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: computertechnologyDate: 2002-01-09 04:00:00
Subject: Commercial: New Book!! PostgreSQL book is released into the market
Previous:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2002-01-09 01:35:36
Subject: 7.1 vs. 7.2 on AIX 5L

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SDDate: 2002-01-09 11:58:36
Subject: --with-tcl build on AIX (and others) fails
Previous:From: Ross J. ReedstromDate: 2002-01-08 20:25:46
Subject: Re: URL's fixed

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group