Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 18:36:55 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS
Message-ID: <20170503213655.w4hoeyr2qik5n66q@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4fde80c9-2a96-7ba4-1365-5c1b394bf51e@2ndQuadrant.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> On 05/03/2017 04:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> > One other point is that as long as we've got reserved keywords introducing
> > each clause, there isn't actually an implementation reason why we couldn't
> > accept the clauses in any order.  Not sure I want to document it that way,
> > but it might not be a bad thing if the grammar was forgiving about whether
> > you write the USING or ON part first ...
> 
> +1 for allowing arbitrary order of clauses. I would document it with the
> USING clause at the end, and have that be what psql supports and pg_dump
> produces. Since there are no WITH options now we should leave that out
> until it's required.

Ok, sounds good to me.  Unless there are objections I'm going to have a
shot at implementing this.  Thanks for the discussion.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers