Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 12:48:31 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: create table like including storage parameter
Message-ID: <aPu77xiPRJaIlc49@nathan>
References: 
 <CACJufxHr=nKEsS66M7rTHgB+mXdQ948=_eJ1jztAc7PT-eJefA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwbFTgLv4t7f63Xsco2r_8qjW9bdpi5vg1nq0D-o=X_6GQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKFQuwbFTgLv4t7f63Xsco2r_8qjW9bdpi5vg1nq0D-o=X_6GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aPu77xiPRJaIlc49%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 08:28:45PM -0500, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Sunday, September 28, 2025, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since we already support INCLUDING STORAGE, I’m not sure that
>> INCLUDING STORAGE PARAMETER is the right syntax to go with.
> 
> I’d just call it “including parameters”; sure, all of the existing ones are
> storage related, but if there were non-storage ones we’d include those as
> well, so qualifying with a parameter type doesn’t seem correct.

+1

-- 
nathan