Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 17:01:33 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>,
	Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
	Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal@pivotal.io>,
	Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Subject: Re: create table like: ACCESS METHOD
Message-ID: <YVbAXQc9oaIYfkN1@paquier.xyz>
References: <20201209201328.GT24052@telsasoft.com>
 <X+WJqu4X4EniF6xT@paquier.xyz>
 <20201229230805.GE25152@telsasoft.com>
 <CANP8+j+UihfCrudMprFaTxXFzGw_1W5yHHFSHpRB7xRigOBeww@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210119210331.GN8560@telsasoft.com>
 <20210323003926.GV4203@telsasoft.com>
 <b6102f5b-0753-3f96-071d-5c2b99795159@postgresfriends.org>
 <8b530d40-1e85-e3b4-774f-b9cb4e2b7ca2@enterprisedb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TQfc+m1+ZxWu6ZQ0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8b530d40-1e85-e3b4-774f-b9cb4e2b7ca2@enterprisedb.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YVbAXQc9oaIYfkN1%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--TQfc+m1+ZxWu6ZQ0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 02:30:51PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Hmm.  The problem is that the LIKE clause is really a macro that expands =
to
> the column definitions of the other table.  So there is, so far, no such =
as
> thing as two LIKE clauses contradicting.  Whereas the access method is a
> table property.  So I don't think this syntax is the right approach for t=
his
> feature.
>=20
> You might think about something like
>=20
> CREATE TABLE t2 (...) USING (LIKE t1);
>=20
> At least in terms of how the syntax should be structured.

Good point.  I have marked the patch as RwF.
--
Michael

--TQfc+m1+ZxWu6ZQ0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=nBZA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--TQfc+m1+ZxWu6ZQ0--