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 C131C32A07A for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:50:25 +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 34552-09 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:50:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F9E32A064 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:50:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i8TMnpaT004196; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:49:52 -0400 (EDT) To: "Thomas F. O'Connell" Cc: Stephan Szabo , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: EXTRACT Clarification In-reply-to: <6CFBBB90-1269-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com> 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> Comments: In-reply-to "Thomas F. O'Connell" message dated "Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:46:39 -0400" Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:49:51 -0400 Message-ID: <4195.1096498191@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane 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: 200409/45 X-Sequence-Number: 2564 "Thomas F. O'Connell" writes: > Ah, so it's really a question of whether the syntactic sugar of CREATE > INDEX is considered worthwhile by the developers (rather than a > standards compliance issue) because CREATE INDEX is not a part of the > SQL spec? Right. It is not a SQL-compliance item because CREATE INDEX isn't in the standard in the first place. 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. regards, tom lane