(2011/07/12 0:44), Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2011-07-09 at 23:49 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The new ALTER TABLE grammar seems a bit strange -- ADD, SET, DROP. Is
>> this defined by the SQL/MED standard? It seems at odds with our
>> handling of attoptions
>
> Well, I believe the SQL/MED options were actually implemented first and
> the attoptions afterwards. But it's probably not unwise to keep them
> separate, even though the syntaxes could have been made more similar.
As you say, syntax for attoptions/reloptions seem to satisfy the
requirement of SQL/MED; SET for ADD/SET and RESET for DROP.
But at this time it would break backward compatibility. I think it's
reasonable to unify the syntax for handling SQL/MED options at every
level to "OPTIONS (key 'value', ...)".
Regards,
--
Shigeru Hanada
