On Monday, 29 January 2018, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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 >
I would strongly suggest taking it out entirely then. There really doesn't seem a point in adding a new keyword and a new condition in the grammar if it is going to do absolutely nothing. If anyone thinks it's useful to have I can just take it out of ruleutils and remove its define. But personally I would remove it entirely as it's really just clutter.
