On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 09:01:45AM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > Hm, that's less bulky but more kludgy, I'd say. But wait a minute... > > If ANY and ALL are reserved anyway, should it be possible to > make "(ANY(..) <op> <expr>)" and "(ALL(...) <op> <expr>)" > work grammar-wise? (Note the enclosing parens)
This would be a very, very useful feature. :) 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
