On 3 May 2017 at 23:31, Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> It also seems like we don't need to have *both* fully-reserved keywords
>> introducing each clause *and* parentheses around the lists. Maybe
>> dropping the parens around the stats-types list and the column-names
>> list would help to declutter? (But I'd keep parens around the WITH
>> options, for consistency with other statements.)
+1
>> One other point is that as long as we've got reserved keywords introducing
>> each clause, there isn't actually an implementation reason why we couldn't
>> accept the clauses in any order. Not sure I want to document it that way,
>> but it might not be a bad thing if the grammar was forgiving about whether
>> you write the USING or ON part first ...
>
> +1 for allowing arbitrary order of clauses.
+1
> I would document it with the
> USING clause at the end, and have that be what psql supports and pg_dump
> produces. Since there are no WITH options now we should leave that out
> until it's required.
Let's record the target syntax in parser comments so we can just slot
things in when needed later, without rediscussion.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
