On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:54:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Andrew Dunstan" <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > > On Mon, August 23, 2010 11:49 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> What do you need AFTER for? Seems to me that BEFORE should be > >> enough. (You already have the unadorned syntax for adding an > >> item after the last one, which is the corner case that BEFORE > >> alone doesn't cover). > > > You're right. Strictly speaking we don't need it. But it doesn't > > hurt much to provide it for a degree of symmetry. > > I'm with Alvaro: drop the AFTER variant. It provides more than one > way to do the same thing, which isn't that exciting,
Not to you, maybe, but to users, it's really handy to have intuitive, rather than strictly orthogonal, ways to do things. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
