On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 1:48 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 08:28:45PM -0500, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 28, 2025, jian he wrote:
> >> Since we already support INCLUDING STORAGE, I’m not sure that
> >> INCLUDING STORAGE PARAMETER is the right syntax to
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 08:28:45PM -0500, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Sunday, September 28, 2025, jian he wrote:
>> Since we already support INCLUDING STORAGE, I’m not sure that
>> INCLUDING STORAGE PARAMETER is the right syntax to go with.
>
> I’d just call it “including parameters”; sure, all
On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:28 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 28, 2025, jian he wrote:
>>
>> Since we already support INCLUDING STORAGE, I’m not sure that
>> INCLUDING STORAGE PARAMETER is the right syntax to go with.
>
> I’d just call it “including parameters”; sure, all of t
On Sunday, September 28, 2025, jian he wrote:
>
> Since we already support INCLUDING STORAGE, I’m not sure that
> INCLUDING STORAGE PARAMETER is the right syntax to go with.
>
I’d just call it “including parameters”; sure, all of the existing ones are
storage related, but if there were non-storag
On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 2:42 PM jian he wrote:
>
> “including parameters” would add another keyword "PARAMETERS''.
> currently "INCLUDING STORAGE PARAMETER" no need to add a new keyword.
> If other people favor “including parameters”, then we can do it that
> way in the future.
>
> attached is just
