Is UNDER being stripped out for 7.1?  I'm looking at documentation and don't 
want to write about it if it won't be in there.

-- 
-------- Robert B. Easter  reaster@comptechnews.com ---------
-- CompTechNews Message Board http://www.comptechnews.com/ --
-- CompTechServ Tech Services http://www.comptechserv.com/ --
---------- http://www.comptechnews.com/~reaster/ ------------

Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:20:47 -0500
"Robert B. Easter" <reaster@comptechnews.com>
UNDER?
> Is UNDER being stripped out for 7.1?  I'm looking at documentation and don't
> want to write about it if it won't be in there.

Already gone. Check the recent archives for the discussion...

                    - Thomas

Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:32:13 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: UNDER?
"Robert B. Easter" <reaster@comptechnews.com> writes:
> Is UNDER being stripped out for 7.1?

It's history.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:45:54 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: UNDER? 
"Robert B. Easter" wrote:
> 
> Is UNDER being stripped out for 7.1?  I'm looking at documentation and don't
> want to write about it if it won't be in there.

Thats' how I understand the outcome of a discussion about 1 week ago
here: 

Tom Lane wrote on Tue Jan  2 20:19:18 2001:
> Anyway, we seem to have a clear consensus to pull the UNDER clause from
> the grammar and stick with INHERITS for 7.1.  I will take care of that
> in the next day or so.

------------------
Hannu

Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:10:11 +0000
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Re: UNDER?