Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > I thought the syntax came from Berkeley. We can add ALSO if folks like > > it. I can't think of cases where we have keywords for both on and off > > behavior, and allow a default if the keyword is missing. > > ALTER TABLE ... DROP CONSTRAINT ... [ RESTRICT | CASCADE ] ; > > CREATE TABLE ... [ WITH OIDS | WITHOUT OIDS ] ... ; > > CREATE USER ... [ CREATEDB | NOCREATEDB ] ... ; > > IMHO, from the language design point of view, it seems better if all > options have a name.
Makes sense to me now. No one liked the non-INSTEAD rule description, for sure. Shoot me the patch again and I will put in the the queue. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
