NikhilS wrote:
> > * Clear explanation of the new syntax, with examples of each permutation
> > so we can see how that would work. In light of recent discussions on
> > -hackers we need to take a view on whether we should go with Gavin's
> > suggested syntax or this syntax.
> >
> > * There are some additional syntax items I don't understand the need
> > for. So these need to be explained.
> >
> > * I would be against using the term PARTITION BY since it is already a
> > phrase that is part of the SQL Standard. Perhaps PARTITIONED BY?
> >
> > * We need regression tests for any new command syntax
> >
> > * No docs - that might be the same thing as the first item
>
> Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working
> on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not
> be needed in the first place?
>
> I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective consensus here,
> before deciding the further course of actions.
I think it is unwise to wait on Gavin for a more complex implemention
--- we might end up with nothing for 8.4. As long as your syntax is
compatible with whatever Gavin proposed Gavin can add on to your patch
once it is applied.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
