Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I expected that but I haven't seen any agreement on a replacement syntax. The
> only other one proposed was:
> ALTER TABLE foo ALTER INHERITS ADD|DROP bar
> and it received no comments. Should I just assume that's the direction to go
> if nobody objects?
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We should try very hard to avoid adding new reserved words, IMNSHO.
>
> *Especially* ones not sanctioned by the SQL spec. Reserving a word that
> is not listed as reserved in the standard is really a spec viol
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We should try very hard to avoid adding new reserved words, IMNSHO.
*Especially* ones not sanctioned by the SQL spec. Reserving a word that
is not listed as reserved in the standard is really a spec violation,
because it means that spec-conforming SQL
Greg Stark wrote:
As described on -hackers this is my work so far adding ADD/DROP INHERITS. It
implements the controversial "ALTER TABLE ADD/DROP INHERITS "
syntax that requires making INHERITS a reserved keyword. I haven't seen a
clear consensus yet on what the best syntax to use here would be.
