On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 06:10:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I'm fairly disinclined to do anything about it though, because I'm > afraid of the SQL committee standardizing some other syntax for the > same idea in future (or maybe worse, commandeering the same keyword > for some other feature). It doesn't seem quite valuable enough to > take those risks for.
Also, isn't the OP problem already solved by the SEARCH / CYCLE grammar handling added in 3696a600e2292?
