Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item
Date
Msg-id 3C3B0D0A.50FE1C43@fourpalms.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item  (Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item  (Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>)
List pgsql-patches
> > > Does this have the multiple "WITH xxx" clauses which were discussed
> > > earlier? That is a nonstarter for syntax. There are other places in the
> > > grammar having "with clauses" and multiple arguments or subclauses, and
> > > having the shift/reduce issues resolved...
...
> CREATE DATABASE <name> WITH LOCATION = <name> WITH OWNER = <name>

It was this syntax I was wondering about. Multiple "WITH"s should not be
necessary. Are they actually required in the patch?

                  - Thomas

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: URL's fixed
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: URL's fixed