Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Also, since I checked and it seems that our syntax for putting
> > tables an d indexes in tablespaces at creation time is identical to
> > oracle's, perhaps we should copy them on constraints as well.
>
> Since we're getting close to beta, can we have consensus on
> > Also, since I checked and it seems that our syntax for putting tables an
> > d indexes in tablespaces at creation time is identical to oracle's,
> > perhaps we should copy them on constraints as well.
>
> Since we're getting close to beta, can we have consensus on what I'm to
> do about th
We are already in a features freeze period, or not ?
This isn't a feature, it's a bug...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I never really considered oracle's implementation of tablespaces when I
worked on tablespaces. The database default tablespace seems similar to
Oracle's SYSTEM tablespace. I'm not sure if they use a global tablespace
like we do.
My point was that Oracle has added a t
I never really considered oracle's implementation of tablespaces when I
worked on tablespaces. The database default tablespace seems similar to
Oracle's SYSTEM tablespace. I'm not sure if they use a global tablespace
like we do.
My point was that Oracle has added a tablespace clause to the constra
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
> >
> > Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
> > without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
>
> I note that this seems to be the Oracle syntax:
>
> C
Since we stole tablespaces from Oracle, maybe we should make them work
the same?
I never really considered oracle's implementation of tablespaces when I
worked on tablespaces. The database default tablespace seems similar to
Oracle's SYSTEM tablespace. I'm not sure if they use a global tablespace
l
Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
This suggests a slightly different oracle syntax. I guess the word
'index' is optional.
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/ch_18
Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
I note that this seems to be the Oracle syntax:
CONSTRAINT PK_Stock PRIMARY KEY (Company) USING INDEX TABLESPACE
Appl_Indexes
Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
No, I've already done it and it works just fine. What is your
suggestion then? Just assume the name of the index it will get?
Also, I realised that the pg_get_serial_sequence() does
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
regards, tom lane
---
11 matches
Mail list logo
