Hi Robert, On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 09:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > That's a very elegant hack, but not exactly obvious to a novice user > or, say, me. So I think it'd be nicer to have the obvious syntax > work.
I fully agree - but you first have to convince core hackers that this is not just a foot-gun. This was discussed many times in the past, patches were also offered (perhaps not complete one, but proving that there is an itch getting scratched): http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2002-09/msg00255.php The reaction: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2002-09/msg00256.php There are other discussions too, if I remember correctly Tom once admitted that the core of implementing the feature would likely consist in letting it work, as the infrastructure is there to do it but it is actively disabled. I can't find the mail now though. So it is really an ideological thing and not lack of demand or implementation attempts... I for myself can't write working C code anyway, so I got my peace with the workaround - I wish you good luck arguing Tom :-) Cheers, Csaba. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
