Any chance we can get WITH without RECURSIVE? That would be very
handy all by itself.
I thought Greg already did submitted that?
To my knowledge, it is not done. If it is, great!
Joshua D. Drake
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 11:09 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:52:14AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Unfortunately we (the community) will not have WITH/RECURSIVE for 8.3.
>> > However I have spoken with a Al
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 11:09 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:52:14AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Unfortunately we (the community) will not have WITH/RECURSIVE for 8.3.
> > However I have spoken with a Alexey and Alvaro and Command Prompt has
> > decide
David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:52:14AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Unfortunately we (the community) will not have WITH/RECURSIVE for 8.3.
>> However I have spoken with a Alexey and Alvaro and Command Prompt has
>> decided to make WITH/RECURSIVE a priority for 8
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:52:14AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
Unfortunately we (the community) will not have WITH/RECURSIVE for 8.3.
However I have spoken with a Alexey and Alvaro and Command Prompt has
decided to make WITH/RECURSIVE a priority for 8.4.
Any cha
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:52:14AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Unfortunately we (the community) will not have WITH/RECURSIVE for 8.3.
> However I have spoken with a Alexey and Alvaro and Command Prompt has
> decided to make WITH/RECURSIVE a priority for 8.4.
Any chance we can get
