| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(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>, Simon Riggs <simon(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: | 2017-05-03 21:36:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20170503213655.w4hoeyr2qik5n66q@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 05/03/2017 04:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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. 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.
Ok, sounds good to me. Unless there are objections I'm going to have a
shot at implementing this. Thanks for the discussion.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-03 21:37:57 | Re: How huge does mvtest_huge need to be? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-05-03 21:34:47 | Re: CTE inlining |