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 <supertable clause>

Wed, 24 May 2000 10:00:46 +1000
Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>
Re: SQL3 UNDER

> Chris Bitmead wrote:
> >Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > 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 <supertable clause>

Actually, from this I'd say Peter was right unless I'm horribly misreading
the
grammar piece provided, <table element list> doesn't come both before and
after <subtable clause> in the <table contents source>, it is either alone,
or part of the OF...<table element list> with the | breaking the two
options.



Tue, 23 May 2000 17:43:05 -0700
"Stephan Szabo" <sszabo@kick.com>
Re: SQL3 UNDER
You're right. I'll have to look at making changes.

Stephan Szabo wrote:
> 
> > Chris Bitmead wrote:
> > >Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > 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 <supertable clause>
> 
> Actually, from this I'd say Peter was right unless I'm horribly misreading
> the
> grammar piece provided, <table element list> doesn't come both before and
> after <subtable clause> in the <table contents source>, it is either alone,
> or part of the OF...<table element list> with the | breaking the two
> options.

Wed, 24 May 2000 10:49:51 +1000
Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>
Re: SQL3 UNDER