You're right. I'll have to look at making changes.
Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > 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.
