| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Karol Trzcionka <karlikt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Date: | 2013-05-02 18:37:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20130502183707.GD12887@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:40:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> prior/after? Both are unreserved keywords atm and it seems far less
> >> likely to have conflicts than new/old.
>
> > BEFORE/AFTER seems more logical to me.
>
> Works for me.
>
> regards, tom lane
Maybe we can make BEFORE and AFTER implied aliases rather than
keywords. What say?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-05-02 18:44:57 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-05-02 18:25:30 | Re: pgbench --startup option |