> Chris Bitmead wrote:
> >Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Agreed, but note that according to the final SQL99 standard the UNDER
> > clause comes before the originally defined column list, which does make
> > sense because that's how the columns end up.
> Are you sure? It actually looks to me like you can have the UNDER before
> or after. What sense do you make of that? (Note the <table element
> list> occuring before and after the <subtable clause>.
> <table definition> ::=
> CREATE [ <table scope> ] TABLE <table name>
> <table contents source>
> [ ON COMMIT <table commit action> ROWS ]
>
> <table contents source> ::=
> <table element list>
> | OF <user-defined type>
> [ <subtable clause> ]
> [ <table element list> ]
> <subtable clause> ::=
> UNDER <supertable clause>
Actually, from this I'd say Peter was right unless I'm horribly misreading
the
grammar piece provided, <table element list> doesn't come both before and
after <subtable clause> in the <table contents source>, it is either alone,
or part of the OF...<table element list> with the | breaking the two
options.
