On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 09:11 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Nov 14, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I had been manfully restraining myself from re-opening this discussion, > > but yeah I was thinking the same thing. The original objection to using > > just WITH was that it wasn't very clear what you were doing "with" the > > operator; but that was back when we had a different initial keyword for > > the construct. EXCLUDE ... WITH ... seems to match up pretty naturally. > > You're more man than I, Tom, but yeah, with EXCLUDE, WITH works well on its > own, methinks.
Changed in new patch here: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1258226849.708.97.ca...@jdavis Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
