Re: SQL3 UNDER
От | Chris Bitmead |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SQL3 UNDER |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 392B1BAE.5CBC9762@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | SQL3 UNDER (Chris Bitmead <chris@bitmead.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On Tue, 23 May 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote: > > > As far as I'm concerned, current postgres INHERIT, is exactly the same > > semantics as UNDER (apart from multiple inheritance). > > Agreed, but note that according to the final SQL99 standard the UNDER > clause comes before the originally defined column list, which does make > sense because that's how the columns end up. Are you sure? It actually looks to me like you can have the UNDER before or after. What sense do you make of that? (Note the <table element list> occuring before and after the <subtable clause>. <table definition> ::= CREATE [ <table scope> ] TABLE <table name> <table contents source> [ ON COMMIT <table commit action> ROWS ] <table contents source> ::= <table element list> | OF <user-defined type> [ <subtable clause> ] [ <table element list> ] <subtable clause> ::= UNDER <supertableclause>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: