On N, 2005-09-01 at 09:26 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 05:14:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > That strikes me as an unnecessary reduction in flexibility. As long as > > we make the hardwired type names translate to qualified names (same as > > they do now) we don't have to assume any such thing. > > Ack, there's fortunatly only a handful of those. > > > The point about character sets is a bit distressing; here we are > > designing a new general-purpose mechanism and we can already see > > cases it doesn't handle. Can we fix that? > > Err, well. My thought was a certain group of type-suffix options would > be permitted (only zero or one at a time), for example: > > WITH TIME ZONE > WITHOUT TIME ZONE > CHARACTER SET xxx > > And have the grammer accept these after any type.
Maybe make the last one "WITH CHARACTER SET xxx" and promote WITH to a real keyword. It seems a good idea to have WITH as a real keyword anyway, as at least ANSI/ISO syntax for recursive queries seem to require it too. -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
