On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Nikolay Shaplov
wrote:
> В письме от 31 мая 2016 15:38:38 пользователь Robert Haas написал:
>
> > >>> 99% of the time, you'd be right. But this is an unusual case, for
> the
> > >>> reasons I mentioned before.
> > >>
> > >> I tend to
В письме от 31 мая 2016 15:38:38 пользователь Robert Haas написал:
> >>> 99% of the time, you'd be right. But this is an unusual case, for the
> >>> reasons I mentioned before.
> >>
> >> I tend to agree with Nikolay. I can't see much upside in making this
> >> change. At best, nothing will
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 99% of the time, you'd be right. But this is an unusual case, for the
>>> reasons I mentioned before.
>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 99% of the time, you'd be right. But this is an unusual case, for the
>> reasons I mentioned before.
> I tend to agree with Nikolay. I can't see much upside in making this
>
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nikolay Shaplov writes:
>> Actually I did not expected any discussion for this case. Documentations
>> missed an optional keyword, documentation should be fixed.
>
> 99% of the time, you'd be right.
Nikolay Shaplov writes:
> Actually I did not expected any discussion for this case. Documentations
> missed an optional keyword, documentation should be fixed.
99% of the time, you'd be right. But this is an unusual case, for the
reasons I mentioned before.
В письме от 26 мая 2016 10:05:56 пользователь Tom Lane написал:
> > 2. I think expression with USING in it is more human readable:
> > CREATE INDEX (xxx op_yyy);
> > is less sensible then
> > CREATE INDEX (xxx USING op_yyy);
>
> Yes. If we were working in a green field, it would have been
Nikolay Shaplov writes:
> РпиÑÑме Ð¾Ñ 24 Ð¼Ð°Ñ 2016 12:47:20 полÑзоваÑÐµÐ»Ñ Tom
> Lane напиÑал:
>> I think we should seriously consider fixing this code/docs discrepancy
>> by making the code match the docs, not vice versa. That is, let's
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Nikolay Shaplov
wrote:
> В письме от 24 мая 2016 12:47:20 пользователь Tom Lane написал:
> > Nikolay Shaplov writes:
> > > If I read gram.y code for insert statement, I see that there is an
> > > optional
> > >
В письме от 24 мая 2016 12:47:20 пользователь Tom Lane написал:
> Nikolay Shaplov writes:
> > If I read gram.y code for insert statement, I see that there is an
> > optional
> > USING keyword before opclass name
> >
> > opt_class: any_name
Nikolay Shaplov writes:
> If I read gram.y code for insert statement, I see that there is an optional
> USING keyword before opclass name
> opt_class: any_name{ $$ = $1; }
> | USING any_name{ $$ = $2;
If I read gram.y code for insert statement, I see that there is an optional
USING keyword before opclass name
opt_class: any_name{ $$ = $1; }
| USING any_name{ $$ = $2; }
| /*EMPTY*/ {
12 matches
Mail list logo