Oliver Ford <ojf...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, 29 January 2018, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I've started to go through this in some detail, and I'm wondering why
>> you invented a FRAMEOPTION_EXCLUDE_NO_OTHERS option bit rather than
>> just representing that choice as default (0).
> My guess is that it's a little like putting "ORDER BY x ASC" when ASC is
> usually default behavior - it adds some documentation, perhaps for people
> new to SQL or to make your intention more explicit. That's the only reason
> I can think of as to why the standards committee included it.
Yeah, they like to do that. And "ORDER BY x ASC" is actually a precise
precedent, because we don't print ASC either, cf get_rule_orderby().
regards, tom lane
