X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B514932A137 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:33:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87675-01 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:33:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.63]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B19632A123 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:33:51 +0100 (BST) Received: from 209-6-216-111.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.216.111] helo=[192.168.0.8]) by smtp04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1CCqlT-0006T0-00; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:33:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4922.1096501564@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <20040928222637.L43334@megazone.bigpanda.com> <0E177963-1214-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> <29367.1096471944@sss.pgh.pa.us> <29A85DE5-122E-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> <29855.1096474142@sss.pgh.pa.us> <6CFBBB90-1269-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> <4195.1096498191@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4922.1096501564@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2A4C2EF4-1289-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephan Szabo , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org From: Thomas F.O'Connell Subject: Re: EXTRACT Clarification Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:33:51 -0400 To: Tom Lane X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200409/47 X-Sequence-Number: 2566 Nice. Thanks. My guess is that because this problem has existed until now there's no point in adding any notes to the 7.4.x docs? -tfo On Sep 29, 2004, at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The fact that the CREATE INDEX syntax allows for some things that look >> like function calls but not for other things that look like function >> calls is an annoyance, no doubt about it. I'm not sure how important >> it is to fix though. > > Turns out to be easy to fix in the grammar, so I did it. > > regards, tom lane