Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:23:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > > Uh, if the CLUSTER doesn't recurse, the WITHOUT shouldn't either, I
> > > > think, and throwing an error seems fine to me, even if it isn't the same
> > > > wording as a
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:23:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Uh, if the CLUSTER doesn't recurse, the WITHOUT shouldn't either, I
> > > think, and throwing an error seems fine to me, even if it isn't the same
> > > wording as a syntax error.
> >
> > Well, ma
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Uh, if the CLUSTER doesn't recurse, the WITHOUT shouldn't either, I
> > think, and throwing an error seems fine to me, even if it isn't the same
> > wording as a syntax error.
>
> Well, maybe - up to you.
Well, if we don't recurse on creation, does it make sense
Uh, if the CLUSTER doesn't recurse, the WITHOUT shouldn't either, I
think, and throwing an error seems fine to me, even if it isn't the same
wording as a syntax error.
Well, maybe - up to you.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our exten
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Actually, it occurs to me that the SET WITHOUT CLUSTER form CAN recurse.
> >> Should I make it do that, even though the CLUSTER ON form cannot?
> >
> > I just thought about this. CLUSTER is more of a storage-level
> > specification, rather than a logical one.
Actually, it occurs to me that the SET WITHOUT CLUSTER form CAN recurse.
Should I make it do that, even though the CLUSTER ON form cannot?
I just thought about this. CLUSTER is more of a storage-level
specification, rather than a logical one. Seems it is OK that WITOUTH
CLUSTER not recurse int
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Now, I have to change that relation_expr to qualified_name. However,
> >>this causes shift/reduce errors. (Due to ALTER TABLE relation_expr SET
> >>WITHOUT OIDS.)
> >
> > Well, seems like what you have to do is leave it as relation_expr
> > as far as bison is
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, seems like what you have to do is leave it as relation_expr
>> as far as bison is concerned, but test in the C-code action and error
>> out if "*" was specified. (Accepting ONLY seems alright to me.)
> Actually, it occurs to me that the
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is the new grammar that I added:
> | ALTER TABLE relation_expr SET WITHOUT CLUSTER
> Now, I have to change that relation_expr to qualified_name. However,
> this causes shift/reduce errors. (Due to ALTER TABLE relation_expr SET
> WITHOU
Hi,
I have done a patch for turning off clustering on a table entirely.
Unforunately, of the three syntaxes I can think of, all cause
shift/reduce errors:
SET WITHOUT CLUSTER;
DROP CLUSTER
CLUSTER ON NONE;
This is the new grammar that I added:
/* ALTER TABLE SET WITHOUT CLUSTER */
| ALTER TAB
10 matches
Mail list logo
