Received: from comptechnews.com (root@cc993546-b.srst1.fl.home.com
	[24.3.77.52]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25506
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 20 May 2000 18:34:08 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from reaster@comptechnews.com)
Received: from comptechnews (reaster@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by comptechnews.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA18436;
	Sat, 20 May 2000 18:35:33 -0400
From: "Robert B. Easter" <reaster@comptechnews.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Thus spoke SQL3 (on OO)
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:25:57 -0400
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28]
Content-Type: text/plain
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005201507330.423-100000@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005201507330.423-100000@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <00052018353302.14806@comptechnews>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archive-Number: 200005/356

On Sat, 20 May 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> UNDER <supertable>, <supertable>, ...

The standard is very confusing,  I am probably wrong, but I didn't see the
syntax for allowing more than one <supertable clause> after the UNDER keyword.

Did Oracle approve ANSI-ISO-9075?  I didn't notice them listed anywhere.  9075
is the SQL3 standard right?  (or else I'm reading the wrong stuff!!)  :)

 -- 
Robert B. Easter
reaster@comptechnews.com