In-Reply-To: <29855.1096474142@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <DD3C2AD6-11C9-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com>
	<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>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <6CFBBB90-1269-11D9-8537-000D93AE0944@sitening.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
From: Thomas F.O'Connell <tfo@sitening.com>
Subject: Re: EXTRACT Clarification 
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:46:39 -0400
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

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?

Now that I understand what's going on, I don't have a strong 
preference, but I'd say that either it needs noting in the 
documentation or it should be added to the grammar.

And if it isn't going to hit the grammar for 7.4.x, I'd be happy to 
supply a doc patch.

-tfo

On Sep 29, 2004, at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com> writes:
>> That seems reasonable, too, although I was interested to learn that
>> this (and a few other expressions) weren't actually functions.
>
> They are functions ... but not from the point of view of the grammar,
> which has special productions for them to cope with SQL's whimsical
> syntax requirements.
>
> 			regards, tom lane