Sent from my iPad
On 03-May-2013, at 0:07, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:40:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
>>> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>> prior/after? Both are unreserved keywords atm and it seems far less
>>>> likely to have conflicts than new/old.
>>
>>> BEFORE/AFTER seems more logical to me.
>>
>> Works for me.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>
> Maybe we can make BEFORE and AFTER implied aliases rather than
> keywords. What say?
>
>
I agree.Overall,I like the concept.
Regards,
Atri
