Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IIRC Tom's main objection to the previous proposal was that it involved 
> large grammar changes, which I understand is not now proposed.

No, they're already in there --- the patch seems to have been written
according to that proposal despite the objections.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to