Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> + | TABLE table_ref
BTW, this seems to accept *way* more than is intended by the spec.
I think a closer approximation would be "TABLE relation_expr".
You could even make a case for "TABLE qualified_name", which is
what the letter of the spec seems to demand; but it's probably
reasonable to allow ONLY decoration.
regards, tom lane
