Re: [HACKERS] Psql doesn't allow multiple action rules - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Psql doesn't allow multiple action rules
Date
Msg-id 5366.903281456@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Psql doesn't allow multiple action rules  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Psql doesn't allow multiple action rules  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>     The question is now, should we tell psql that []'s have to be
>     treated like ()'s or should we change the  syntax  of  CREATE
>     RULE in the backends parser from [] to ()?

Is the syntax of CREATE RULE defined by the SQL standard (or modeled
on something else that is in the standard), or are we just making it
up out of whole cloth?

If it's defined by the standard then I think we have no choice but to
change psql.

If it's our own invention, I think switching to () might be a better
idea.  I'm not that worried about changing psql, but I do wonder how
many other applications might "know" a similar amount about SQL
syntax...

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] int8 type -- call for porting results!
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What I'm working on