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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
