On 3 May 2017 at 23:31, Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> It also seems like we don't need to have *both* fully-reserved keywords >> introducing each clause *and* parentheses around the lists. Maybe >> dropping the parens around the stats-types list and the column-names >> list would help to declutter? (But I'd keep parens around the WITH >> options, for consistency with other statements.) +1 >> One other point is that as long as we've got reserved keywords introducing >> each clause, there isn't actually an implementation reason why we couldn't >> accept the clauses in any order. Not sure I want to document it that way, >> but it might not be a bad thing if the grammar was forgiving about whether >> you write the USING or ON part first ... > > +1 for allowing arbitrary order of clauses. +1 > I would document it with the > USING clause at the end, and have that be what psql supports and pg_dump > produces. Since there are no WITH options now we should leave that out > until it's required. Let's record the target syntax in parser comments so we can just slot things in when needed later, without rediscussion. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
